Epilogue

Abstract

As was said in the Foreword, the ideas and thoughts presented in the book rather constitute an unfinished project or, if the readers prefer, an unended quest. Yet, the notion that human agents need to be engaged in problem-solving as part of their intellectual development is an old one, going back to Aristotle who wrote about the “development of talents” (Phelps 2009). In light of the discussion in the previous chapters, one can detect a strong knowledge synthesis component in real-world problem-solving. Knowledge synthesis institutes a broad framework in which different sets of mental entities describing constituent phenomena in the individual disciplines are integrated to solve the composite in situ problem under conditions of multisourced uncertainty. In general, description, explanation, and prediction can be all essential elements of a composite solution. As a result of these considerations, some readers may detect some similarity between the knowledge synthesis perspective of IPS and the Quinean interpretation of problem-solution as a “matrix” or “integrated body” of multidisciplinary KBs. The Quinean “matrix” can be changed or adapted in light of new evidence or as a result of a revision in the agent’s thinking style. The “matrix” allows epistemic pluralism, i.e., the adequate formulation and understanding of a specified problem may involve distinct data sources and methods of producing knowledge. An Epibraimatics premise is that the accommodation of this plurality could lead to more successful IPS.