In this paper, we discuss epistemic and ethical concerns brought about by machine learning (ML) systems implemented in medicine. We begin by fleshing out the logic underlying a common approach in the specialized literature (which we call the informativeness account). We maintain that the informativeness account limits its analysis to the impact of epistemological issues on ethical concerns without assessing the bearings that ethical features have on the epistemological evaluation of ML systems. We argue that according to this methodological approach, epistemological issues are instrumental to and autonomous of ethical considerations. This means that the informativeness account considers epistemological evaluation uninfluenced and unregulated by an ethical counterpart. Using an example that does not square well into the informativeness account, we argue for ethical assessments that have a substantial influence on the epistemological assessment of ML and that such influence should not be understood as merely informative but rather regulatory. Drawing on the case analyzed, we claim that within the theoretical framework of the informativeness approach, forms of epistemic injustice—especially epistemic objectification—remain unaddressed. Our analysis should motivate further research investigating the regulatory role that ethical elements play in the epistemology of ML.

@en

In this article, I focus on the role of computer simulations as exploratory strategies. I begin by establishing the non-theory-driven nature of simulations. This refers to their ability to characterize phenomena without relying on a predefined conceptual framework that is provided by an implemented mathematical model. Drawing on Steinle’s notion of exploratory experimentation and Gelfert’s work on exploratory models, I present three exploratory strategies for computer simulations: (1) starting points and continuation of scientific inquiry, (2) varying the parameters, and (3) scientific prototyping.@en

AI is believed to have the potential to radically change modern medicine. Medical AI systems are developed to improve diagnosis, prediction, and treatment of a wide array of medical conditions. It is assumed to enable more accurate and efficient ways to diagnose diseases and “to restore the precious and time-honored connection and trust – the human touch – between patients and doctors“ (Topol, 2019, p. 18), by enabling health care professionals to spend more time with their patients. Sophisticated self-learning AI systems that do not follow predetermined decision rules – often referred to as black-boxes (Esteva et al 2019; Shortliffe et al 2018) – have spawned philosophical debate: the black-box nature of AI systems is believed to be a major ethical challenge for the use of these systems in medicine and it remains disputed whether explainability is philosophically and computationally possible. This special issue focuses on the ethics and epistemology of explainability in medical AI broadly construed.@en

The philosophical study of computer simulations has been largely subordinated to the analysis of sets of equations and their implementation on the computer. What has received less attention, however, is whether simulation models can be taken as units of analysis in their own right. Here I present my own experimental work investigating this issue. This article explores the capacity of programming languages to represent target systems and submits that, in a number of cases, the representation of simulation models differs in non-trivial ways from sets of equations. If my claim is correct, then a few important methodological and epistemological concerns emerge that need our attention. This article finishes by briefly addressing some implications for the philosophy of computer simulation.@en

The use of black box algorithms in medicine has raised scholarly concerns due to their opaqueness and lack of trustworthiness. Concerns about potential bias, accountability and responsibility, patient autonomy and compromised trust transpire with black box algorithms. These worries connect epistemic concerns with normative issues. In this paper, we outline that black box algorithms are less problematic for epistemic reasons than many scholars seem to believe. By outlining that more transparency in algorithms is not always necessary, and by explaining that computational processes are indeed methodologically opaque to humans, we argue that the reliability of algorithms provides reasons for trusting the outcomes of medical artificial intelligence (AI). To this end, we explain how computational reliabilism, which does not require transparency and supports the reliability of algorithms, justifies the belief that results of medical AI are to be trusted. We also argue that several ethical concerns remain with black box algorithms, even when the results are trustworthy. Having justified knowledge from reliable indicators is, therefore, necessary but not sufficient for normatively justifying physicians to act. This means that deliberation about the results of reliable algorithms is required to find out what is a desirable action. Thus understood, we argue that such challenges should not dismiss the use of black box algorithms altogether but should inform the way in which these algorithms are designed and implemented. When physicians are trained to acquire the necessary skills and expertise, and collaborate with medical informatics and data scientists, black box algorithms can contribute to improving medical care.@en

Explanatory AI (XAI) is on the rise, gaining enormous traction with the computational community, policymakers, and philosophers alike. This article contributes to this debate by first distinguishing scientific XAI (sXAI) from other forms of XAI. It further advances the structure for bona fide sXAI, while remaining neutral regarding preferences for theories of explanations. Three core components are under study, namely, i) the structure for bona fide sXAI, consisting in elucidating the explanans, the explanandum, and the explanatory relation for sXAI: ii) the pragmatics of explanation, which includes a discussion of the role of multi-agents receiving an explanation and the context within which the explanation is given; and iii) a discussion on Meaningful Human Explanation, an umbrella concept for different metrics required for measuring the explanatory power of explanations and the involvement of human agents in sXAI. The kind of AI systems of interest in this article are those utilized in medicine and the healthcare system. The article also critically addresses current philosophical and computational approaches to XAI. Amongst the main objections, it argues that there has been a long-standing interpretation of classifications as explanation, when these should be kept separate.

@en

Medical AI is increasingly being developed and tested to improve medical diagnosis, prediction and treatment of a wide array of medical conditions. Despite worries about the explainability and accuracy of such medical AI systems, it is reasonable to assume that they will be increasingly implemented in medical practice. Current ethical debates focus mainly on design requirements and suggest embedding certain values such as transparency, fairness, and explainability in the design of medical AI systems. Aside from concerns about their design, medical AI systems also raise questions with regard to physicians' responsibilities once these technologies are being implemented and used. How do physicians’ responsibilities change with the implementation of medical AI? Which set of competencies do physicians have to learn to responsibly interact with medical AI? In the present article, we will introduce the notion of forward-looking responsibility and enumerate through this conceptual lens a number of competencies and duties that physicians ought to employ to responsibly utilize medical AI in practice. Those include amongst others understanding the range of reasonable outputs, being aware of own experience and skill decline, and monitoring potential accuracy decline of the AI systems.@en

Many philosophical accounts of scientific models fail to distinguish between a simulation model and other forms of models. This failure is unfortunate because there are important differences pertaining to their methodology and epistemology that favor their philosophical understanding. The core claim presented here is that simulation models are rich and complex units of analysis in their own right, that they depart from known forms of scientific models in significant ways, and that a proper understanding of the type of model simulations are fundamental for their philosophical assessment. I argue that simulation models can be distinguished from other forms of models by the many algorithmic structures, representation relations, and new semantic connections involved in their architecture. In this article, I reconstruct a general architecture for a simulation model, one that faithfully captures the complexities involved in most scientific research with computer simulations. Furthermore, I submit that a new methodology capable of conforming such architecture into a fully functional, computationally tractable computer simulation must be in place. I discuss this methodology—what I call recasting—and argue for its philosophical novelty. If these efforts are heading towards the right interpretation of simulation models, then one can show that computer simulations shed new light on the philosophy of science. To illustrate the potential of my interpretation of simulation models, I briefly discuss simulation-based explanations as a novel approach to questions about scientific explanation.

@en

When one wants to use citizen input to inform policy, what should the standards of informedness on the part of the citizens be? While there are moral reasons to allow every citizen to participate and have a voice on every issue, regardless of education and involvement, designers of participatory assessments have to make decisions about how to structure deliberations as well as how much background information and deliberation time to provide to participants. After assessing different frameworks for the relationship between science and society, we use Philip Kitcher's framework of Well-Ordered Science to propose an epistemic standard on how citizen deliberations should be structured. We explore what potential standards follow from this epistemic framework focusing on significance versus scientific and engineering expertise. We argue that citizens should be tutored on the historical context of why scientific questions became significant and deemed scientifically and socially valuable, and if citizens report that they are capable of weighing in on an issue then they should be able to do so. We explore what this standard can mean by looking at actual citizen deliberations tied to the 2014 NASA ECAST Asteroid Initiative Citizen forums. We code different vignettes of citizens debating alternative approaches for Mars exploration based upon what level of information seemed to be sufficient for them to feel comfortable in making a policy position. The analysis provides recommendations on how to design and assess future citizen assessments grounded in properly conveying the historical value context surrounding a scientific issue and trusting citizens to seek out sufficient information to deliberate.

@en

A plausible reading of the FAIR principles (Wilkinson et al. 2016) is that they were introduced with the intention to eliminate, or at least reduce, Dark Data (Dark Data being data which is non-reusable). Arguably, they derive their worth from how successful they are in this endeavour (even if only in principle). In this paper, we highlight a class of data which we call Lost Data. Lost Data is data, knowledge of whose existence has been lost to relevant interested parties. Lost Data poses a problem for the FAIR principles in so far as it is demonstrable that Lost Data both i) comply with the standards set out in the FAIR principles, and ii) nonetheless qualify as dark, by its existence being unknown to those relevant interested parties, and it’s being non-reusable, as a result. If the FAIR principles should indeed be rightly understood as an attempt to eliminate Dark Data, as we suggest, Lost Data thus poses a significant problem. Lost Data serves as a demonstration that the FAIR principles fail in this regard, and thus undermines the motivation for them. Lost Data, then, highlights the need for the augmentation of the FAIR principles to plug this identifiable “gap” in which Lost Data sits. In this paper, along with highlighting this problem, we suggest several possible changes that might be made to the FAIR principles that will help assuage it.@en

Many studies in big data focus on the uses of data available to researchers, leaving without treatment data that is on the servers but of which researchers are unaware. We call this dark data, and in this article, we present and discuss it in the context of high-performance computing (HPC) facilities. To this end, we provide statistics of a major HPC facility in Europe, the High-Performance Computing Center Stuttgart (HLRS). We also propose a new position tailor-made for coping with dark data and general data management. We call it the scientific data officer (SDO) and we distin- guish it from other standard positions in HPC facilities such as chief data officers, system administrators, and security officers. In order to understand the role of the SDO in HPC facilities, we discuss two kinds of responsibilities, namely, technical responsibilities and ethical responsibilities. While the former are intended to charac- terize the position, the latter raise concerns—and proposes solutions—to the control and authority that the SDO would acquire.@en

A chronicled approach to the notion of computer simulations shows that there are two predominant interpretations in the specialized literature. According to the first interpretation, computer simulations are techniques for finding the set of solutions to a mathematical model. I call this first interpretation the problem-solving technique viewpoint (PST). In its second interpretation, computer simulations are considered to describe patterns of behavior of a target system. I call this second interpretation the description of patterns of behavior viewpoint of computer simulations (DPB). This article explores these two interpretations of computer simulations from three different angles. First, I collect a series of definitions of computer simulation from the historical record. I track back definitions to the early 1960s and show how each viewpoint shares similar interpretations of computer simulations – ultimately clustering into the two viewpoints aforementioned. This reconstruction also includes the most recent literature. Second, I unpack the philosophical assumptions behind each viewpoint, with a special emphasis on their differences. Third, I discuss the philosophical implications of each viewpoint in the context of the recent discussion on the logic of scientific explanation for computer simulations. @en

There is a widely extended image of computer software as some sort of ‘black box,’ where it does not matter how it internally works, but rather what sort of results are obtained given certain input values. By approaching computer software this way, many philosophical issues are hidden, neglected, or simply misunderstood. This article discusses three units of analysis of computer software, namely, specifications, algorithms, and computer processes. The aim is to understand the scientific and engineering practices supporting each unit of analysis, as well as to analyze their methodology, ontology, and epistemology.@en

Several philosophical issues in connection with computer simulations rely on the assumption that results of simulations are trustworthy. Examples of these include the debate on the experimental role of computer simulations (Parker in Synthese 169(3):483–496, 2009; Morrison in Philos Stud 143(1):33–57, 2009), the nature of computer data (Barberousse and Vorms, in: Durán, Arnold (eds) Computer simulations and the changing face of scientific experimentation, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Barcelona, 2013; Humphreys, in: Durán, Arnold (eds) Computer simulations and the changing face of scientific experimentation, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Barcelona, 2013), and the explanatory power of computer simulations (Krohs in Int Stud Philos Sci 22(3):277–292, 2008; Durán in Int Stud Philos Sci 31(1):27–45, 2017). The aim of this article is to show that these authors are right in assuming that results of computer simulations are to be trusted when computer simulations are reliable processes. After a short reconstruction of the problem of epistemic opacity, the article elaborates extensively on computational reliabilism, a specified form of process reliabilism with computer simulations located at the center. The article ends with a discussion of four sources for computational reliabilism, namely, verification and validation, robustness analysis for computer simulations, a history of (un)successful implementations, and the role of expert knowledge in simulations. @en

This book addresses key conceptual issues relating to the modern scientific and engineering use of computer simulations. It analyses a broad set of questions, from the nature of computer simulations to their epistemological power, including the many scientific, social and ethics implications of using computer simulations. The book is written in an easily accessible narrative, one that weaves together philosophical questions and scientific technicalities. It will thus appeal equally to all academic scientists, engineers, and researchers in industry interested in questions (and conceivable answers) related to the general practice of computer simulations.@en