Phantom Objectivity: Intersubjective Knowledge in Complex Domains of Informal Structure

Authors

  • Jorge Rodas-Osollo *

    Electrical Engineering and Computation Department, Engineering and Technology Institute, University of Juarez City, Juarez, Chihuahua 32310, Mexico

    Faculty of Philosophy and Literature, Autonomous University of Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31203, Mexico
  • Karla Olmos-Sánchez

    Electrical Engineering and Computation Department, Engineering and Technology Institute, University of Juarez City, Juarez, Chihuahua 32310, Mexico

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55121/prr.v2i1.366

Keywords:

Epistemological Neutrality, Complex Domains of Informal Structure, Intersubjectivity, Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Decision-Making

Abstract

This paper advances three interconnected logical claims: First, that epistemological neutrality is fundamentally unattainable due to inherent cognitive, social and historical contingencies; second, that intersubjective frameworks offer a viable alternative to both naïve objectivism and radical relativism; and third, that Complex Domains of Informal Structure provide a particular case in which these epistemic limitations are manifested and can be productively managed through Knowledge Management of Strategic options through Soft Systemic Analysis frameworks. The impossibility of absolute neutrality is demonstrated through theoretical arguments exploring how even foundational scientific theories contain underdetermined elements requiring subjective interpretation; historical arguments showing how paradigmatic shifts reframe supposedly objective truths; and practical arguments revealing how AI solutions trained on ostensibly "neutral" data reproduce social biases. The paper systematically develops its argument through the analysis of fundamental epistemological concepts, drawing on both Western and Eastern philosophical traditions to establish the limitations of traditional epistemology. It then examines how these limitations manifest particularly in Complex Domains of Informal Structure, where tacit knowledge, specialist interpretation, and contextual understanding shape decision-making. Through examination of concrete applications in healthcare, urban planning, and algorithmic governance, the paper demonstrates how intersubjective approaches can acknowledge the unavoidable presence of subjectivity while establishing reliable epistemic frameworks for knowledge validation. This structured reflection ultimately advances a more sophisticated understanding of how knowledge is validated, disseminated, and applied across domains from scientific research to artificial intelligence development.

References

[1] Heron, J., Reason, P., 2008. Extending Epistemology within a Co-operative Inquiry. In: Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications: London, UK. pp. 366–380.

[2] Nagel, T., 1986. The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-view-from-nowhere-9780195056440?cc=mx&lang=en& (cited 30 January 2025).

[3] Popper, K., 1972. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA. Available from: https://archive.org/details/logicofscientifi0000popp (cited 30 January 2025).

[4] Kant, I., 1781/1998. Critique of Pure Reason. In: Guyer, P., Wood, A. (eds.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Available from: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4280 (cited 30 January 2025).

[5] Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA. Available from: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html (cited 30 January 2025).

[6] Feyerabend, P., 1975. Against Method. Verso: London, UK.

[7] Latour, B., Woolgar, S., 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton University Press: Princeton, USA.

[8] Longino, H., 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton University Press: Princeton, USA. Available from: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691020518/science-as-social-knowledge (cited 30 January 2025).

[9] Carnap, R., 1950. Logical Foundations of Probability. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA.

[10] O'Neil, C., 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown: New York, USA.

[11] Peirce, C.S., 1931. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, USA.

[12] Gettier, E.L., 1963. Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis. 23(6), 121–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/23.6.121

[13] Cullen, S., Fan, J., van der Brugge, E., et al., 2018. Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: a quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. NPJ Science of Learning. 3, 21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5

[14] Walková, M., Bradford, J., 2022. Constructing an Argument in Academic Writing Across Disciplines. ESP Today. 10(1), 22–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.1.2

[15] Rodas-Osollo, J., 2023. An Interesting Adventure accompanied by CMCg.I model. Zenodo.

[16] Polanyi, M., 1966. The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA.

[17] Rodas-Osollo, J., Olmos-Sánchez, K., 2024. A methodologic framework for thesystemic management of knowledge. [in Spanish]. NovaRua. 16(29), 47–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20983/novarua.2024.29.3

[18] Witten, I.H., Frank, E., 2005. Data mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, 2nd ed. Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, USA. Available from: https://shop.elsevier.com/books/data-mining/witten/978-0-12-374856-0 (cited 30 January 2025).

[19] Immordino-Yang, M.H., Damasio, A., 2007. We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education. Mind, Brain, and Education. 1(1), 3–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2007.00004.x

[20] Damasio, A.R., 1994. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam: New York, USA.

[21] Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I., et al., 2001. Culture and Systems of Thought: Holistic Versus Analytic Cognition. Psychological Review. 108(2), 291–310. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291

[22] Floridi, L., 2019. What the Near Future of Artificial Intelligence Could Be. Philosophy & Technology. 32(1), 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00345-y

[23] Lake, B.M., Ullman, T.D., Tenenbaum, J.B., et al., 2017. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioural and Brain Sciences. 40, e253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16001837

[24] Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A., 2016. Deep Learning. MIT Press: Cambridge, USA. Available from: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262035613/deep-learning/ (cited 30 January 2025).

[25] LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G., 2015. Deep learning. Nature. 521(7553), 436–444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

[26] Russell, S., Norvig, P., 2020. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 4th ed. Pearson: New York, USA.

[27] Nilsson, N.J., 1998. Artificial Intelligence: A New Synthesis. Morgan Kaufmann: San Francisco, USA.

[28] Dreyfus, H.L., 1992. What Computers Still Can't Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. MIT Press: Cambridge, USA. Available from: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262540674/what-computers-still-cant-do/ (cited 30 January 2025).

[29] Boden, M.A., 2016. AI: Its Nature and Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ai-9780198777984?cc=mx&lang=en& (cited 30 January 2025).

[30] Wittgenstein, L., 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell: Oxford, UK. Available from: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Philosophical+Investigations%2C+4th+Edition-p-9781405159289 (cited 30 January 2025).

[31] Habermas, J., 1991. The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalisation of Society. Polity: Cambridge, UK.

[32] Simon, H.A., 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. MIT Press: Cambridge, USA. Available from: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262691918/the-sciences-of-the-artificial/ (cited 30 January 2025).

[33] Williamson, T., 2000. Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/knowledge-and-its-limits-9780199256563?cc=mx&lang=en& (cited 30 January 2025).

[34] Chomsky, N., 2000. New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge University Press: New York, USA.

[35] Žižek, S., 2009. The sublime object of ideology. Verso Books: London, UK.

[36] Marion, J., 1998. Reduction and Givenness: Investigations of Husserl, Heidegger, and Phenomenology. Northwestern University Press: Evanston, USA.

[37] Gabriel, M., 2015. Why the World Does Not Exist. Polity: Malden, USA.

[38] Meillassoux, Q., 2008. After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. Continuum: New York, USA.

[39] Nussbaum, M.C., 2001. Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

[40] Cartwright, N., 1983. How the laws of physics lie. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/how-the-laws-of-physics-lie-9780198247043?cc=mx&lang=en& (cited 30 January 2025).

[41] McDowell, J., 1996. Mind and World: With a New Introduction by the Author. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA and London, England.

[42] Badiou, A., 2005. Being and event. Continuum: New York, USA.

[43] Garfield, J.L., 1995. The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way: Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Oxford University Press: New York, USA. Available from: https://philpapers.org/rec/GARTFW (cited 30 January 2025).

[44] Nishida, K., 2012. Place and Dialectic: Two Essays by Nishida Kitarō. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK. Available from: https://philpapers.org/rec/KRUPAD (cited 30 January 2025).

[45] Ames, R.T., Rosemont, H., 1998. The Analects of Confucius: A Philosophical Translation. Ballantine Books: New York, USA. Available from: https://philpapers.org/rec/AMETAO (cited 30 January 2025).

[46] Heron, J., 1996. Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition. SAGE Publications: London, UK.

[47] Merton, R.K., 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA.

[48] Chalmers, A.F., 1999. What is this thing called science? Hackett Publishing: Indianapolis, USA.

[49] Dewey, J., 1929. The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. Minton, Balch & Company: New York, USA.

Downloads

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (June 2025)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Jorge Rodas-Osollo, Karla Olmos-Sánchez

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.