We had the pleasure of delving into an enlightening interview with Kevin Kadowaki, a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Modeling Interdisciplinary Inquiry project. Kevin shares his groundbreaking perspective on the intersection of science and humanities, offering insights into his compelling research journey and innovative academic pursuits. His work reflects an exciting integration of diverse fields, from philosophy of science to exploring the ethical implications of AI research. Join us as we unravel his experiences and dive into thought-provoking conversations about the interdisciplinary and philosophical intersections in academia.
1. Typically, postdoctoral researchers in the field of science often work within a laboratory. However, your postdoctoral journey in humanities seems to be unique. Can you talk about that?
In the humanities, there typically aren’t PIs—it’s just not the research structure (in my experience, at least). In the experimental sciences, the need for research funding often makes collaboration necessary. In philosophy, where I don’t need expensive lab equipment, I consult advisors, colleagues, and friends for projects I’m interested in, but there’s no one I report to for shared research. I do have a mentor, although I think that’s relatively unusual for humanities postdocs. The IPH (Interdisciplinary Program in Humanities) is explicitly interdisciplinary, and my mentor is a data scientist in the School of Engineering (Dr. Yevgeniy Vorobeychik). In the IPH, the idea is to branch out into other fields—I’m interested in philosophy of science topics related to data science and AI, and so the IPH program has allowed me to consult with my mentor to expand my interdisciplinary activities into a new field.
2. With a Master’s in Physics and a PhD in Philosophy, how do you connect these two distinct areas of study in your academic pursuits?
Philosophy is a vast discipline, encompassing scholars who are interested in subjects from physics, to classics, to literary studies. I’m a philosopher of science with a focus on physics, particularly in the epistemology of science, the study of knowledge. My dissertation focused on large-scale simulations in science—not performing the simulations myself, but in examining how physicists utilize novel tools and how these can be epistemically justified. I’m interested in questions such as, Why should we trust the results that scientists obtain using these tools? What does this tell us about the character of scientific knowledge? This work involves digging deep into the literature on computer simulations in science, understanding the technical challenges and the methods used to overcome them.
Currently, I’m exploring the intersection of normative and ethical aspects with AI research, trying to think about public policy guidelines. One ethical framework, utilitarianism, is often implicitly applied in data science research, but I’m also thinking about a different framework: virtue ethics. Virtue ethics dates back to Aristotle, and I’m examining how to introduce this language into a field that typically follows an implicit utilitarian perspective. As with my approach to physics, the focus is not on performing data science myself. Instead, I’m interested in studying scientific practices and assessing their effectiveness, productivity, and broader implications.
3. Teaching “The Good Life” sounds like a fascinating course. In your opinion, what’s the key ingredient for a good life, besides, of course, having ice cream?
The goal of the course wasn’t to define a good life—I’m not sure I’m qualified for that. Instead, it aimed to explore different approaches to the concept, highlighting differences between how philosophers, scientists, and artists address this question. E.g., we delved into scientific studies to see how popularized presentations of science often simplify the complex methodologies found in the original study paper. I felt it was important for students to have a sense for the importance of the specifics behind scientific conclusions, even if it may seem complicated—having a sense for what goes on “under the hood” in scientific research fosters both guarded skepticism and a deeper appreciation for the rigor of the scientific process, which relies on careful attention to details.
4. What challenges have you faced in your academic career?
I had to dive into the world of science, even though I don’t have a PhD in Physics. Much of my research involved reading physics journals, which are not intended for general audiences. I took numerous physics and astrophysics classes during grad school to ensure that I had the language and tools needed to communicate with physicists. Overcoming this challenge involved hard work, independent study, and the invaluable guidance of patient scientists who helped me navigate the complexities of this interdisciplinary work.
5. Finally, If you could have a pizza party with any famous philosopher or physicist, living or dead, who would it be, and what philosophical or scientific question would you discuss over slices of pizza?
I guess I’d be interested primarily in physicists who have a sense of the history of the discipline and a sense of the philosophical implications of the discipline. Figures like Einstein serve as classic examples. He consistently emphasized that his work extended beyond mere technicalities, focusing beyond what he could demonstrate and prove in purely technical terms. On the one hand, I’m interested in the essence of the scientific process; on the other, I’m interested in how this process gets played out in practical terms.
Interviewed and Edited by Outreach Comittee 2022-2023.