Here I argue that scientists can achieve some understanding of both the products of big data implementation as well as of the target phenomenon to which they are expected to refer—even when these products were obtained through essentially epistemically opaque processes. The general aim of the paper is to provide a road map for how this is done; going from the use of big data to epistemic opacity (Sec. 2), from epistemic opacity to ignorance (Sec. 3), from ignorance to insights (Sec. 4), and finally, from insights to understanding (Sec. 5, 6)
Aliseda-LleraA. (2023). Towards a characterization of clinical reasoning: An epistemological perspective” (Hacia una caracterización del razonamiento clínico: Una perspectiva epistemológica. In Aliseda-LleraA.Calderón-AguilarC. M.VillanuevaM. (Eds.), Filosofía de la medicina: Discusiones y aportaciones desde México (pp. 69–91). UNAM.
2.
Arango-MuñozS. (2014). The nature of epistemic feelings. Philosophical Psychology, 27(2), 193–211.
3.
ArfiniS. (2019). Ignorant cognition. A philosophical investigation of the cognitive features of not-knowing. Springer.
4.
ArfiniS.MagnaniL. (Eds.) (2022). Embodied, extended, Ignorant Minds: New studies on the nature of not-knowing. Springer International Publishing.
5.
BarberousseA.VormsM. (2014). About the warrants of computer-based empirical knowledge. Synthese, 191(15), 3595–3620.
6.
BengsonJ. (2017). The Unity of understanding. In GrimmS. R. (Ed.), Making Sense of the World: New Essays on the Philosophy of Understanding. Oxford Academic.
7.
BoghossianP. A. (1994). The transparency of mental content. Philosophical Perspectives, 8, 33–50.
8.
BowdenE. M.Jung-BeemanM.FleckJ.KouniosJ. (2005). New approaches to demystifying insight. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7), 322–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.012
9.
César-JiménezC. (2022. Unpublished manuscript). Conversational agents and hybrid intelligence (In Spanish: Agentes Conversacionales e Inteligencia Híbrida).
10.
de RegtH. W. (2009). Understanding and scientific explanation. In de RegtH. W.LeonelliS.EignerK. (Eds.), Scientific understanding: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 21–42). Pittsburgh University Press.
11.
DuránJ. M.FormanekN. (2018). Grounds for trust: Essential epistemic opacity and computational reliabilism. Minds and Machines, 28, 645–666.
12.
DuránJ. M.JongsmaK. R. (2021). Who is afraid of black box algorithms? On the epistemological and ethical basis of trust in medical AI. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47, 329–335.
13.
ElsamahiM. (2005). Coherence between theories. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 35(2), 331–352.
14.
ElginC. Z. (2007). Understanding and the Facts. Philosophical Studies, 132(1), 33–42.
15.
EsterhuizenJ. A.GoldsmithB. R.LinicS. (2022). Interpretable machine learning for knowledge generation in heterogeneous catalysis. Nature Catalysis, 5, 175–184.
16.
FoppaL.SuttonC.GhiringhelliL. M.DeS.LöserP.SchunkS. A.SchäferA.SchefflerM. (2022). Learning design rules for selective oxidation catalysts from high-throughput experimentation and artificial intelligence. ACS Catalysis, 12, 2223–2232.
17.
FrickeM. (2015). Big data and its epistemology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(4), 651–661.
18.
GreelyN. (2021). Epistemic feelings, metacognition, and the Lima problem. Synthese, 199(3–4), 6803–6868.
19.
GrimmS. R. (2006). Is understanding a species of knowledge?British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(3), 515–535.
20.
GrimmS. R. (2014). Understanding as knowledge of causes. In FairweatherA. (Ed.), Virtue epistemology naturalized (pp. 329–345). Synthese Library.
Le BihanS. (2017). Enlightening Falsehoods: A Modal View of Scientific Understanding. In GrimmS. R.BaumbergerC.AmmonS. (Eds.), Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science (pp. 111–136). Routledge.
30.
Le MorvanP.PeelsR. (2016). The nature of ignorance: Two views. In PeelsR.BlaauwM. (Eds.), The epistemic dimensions of ignorance (pp. 12–32). Cambridge University Press.
31.
LeonelliS. (2014). What difference does quantity make? On the epistemology of Big data in biology. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–11.
32.
Martínez-OrdazM. R. (2021). The ignorance behind inconsistency toleration, S.I. knowing the unknown, Synthese. (pp. 8665–8686) Springer.
33.
Martínez-OrdazM. R. (2022). Is there anything special about the ignorance involved in big data practices? In LundgrenB. L.Nuñez-HernándezN. (Eds.), Philosophy of computing, philosophical studies series (Vol. 143, pp. 113–140).
Melián-CabreraI. (2021). Catalytic materials: Concepts to understand the pathway to implementation. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 60, 18545–18559.
36.
MorrisonM. (2015). Reconstructing reality: Models, mathematics, and simulation. Oxford University Press.
37.
PáezA. (2009). The pragmatic turn in Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI). Minds and Machines, 29, 441–459.
38.
PierceC. S. (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge conferences lectures of 1898 (KetnerK. L., ed.). Harvard University Press.
39.
RossW.Vallée-TourangeauF. (2022). Insight with stumpers: Normative solution data for 25 stumpers and a fresh perspective on the accuracy effect. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101114.
40.
RussoF.SchliesserE.WagemansJ. (2023). Connecting ethics and epistemology of AI. AI & Society, Springer.
41.
SliwaP. (2015). Understanding and knowing. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 115(1).
42.
ToyaoT.MaenoZ.TakakusagiS.KamachiT.TakigawaI.ShimizuK. (2020). Machine Learning for Catalysis Informatics:Recent Applications and Prospects, ACS catalysis, 10(3), 2260–2297.
43.
TripathiM. K.NathA.SinghT. P.EthayathullaA. S.KaurP. (2021). Evolving scenario of big data and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in drug discovery. Molecular Diversity, 25, 1439–1460.
WieberF.HocquetA. (2020). Models, parameterization, and software: Epistemic opacity in computational chemistry. Perspectives on Science, 28(5), 610–629.
46.
YlikoskiP. (2009). The illusion of depth of understanding in science. In De RegtH.LeonelliS.EignerK. (Eds.), Scientific Understanding: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 100–119). Pittsburgh University Press.
47.
ZhouT.SongZ.SundmacherK. (2019). Big data creates new opportunities for materials research: A review on methods and applications of machine learning for materials design. Engineering, 5(6), 1017–1026.
