Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce)
Philosophical Problems in Science (Polish: Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce, abbrev. ZFN) is the oldest Polish journal dedicated to the philosophy in science. ZFN covers a wide range of topics of general interest to those working on philosophical problems involved in and intertwined with modern science (see Focus and Scope). ZFN has originated from a long tradition of Krakow philosophy of nature dating back to the second half of the nineteenth century (see Journal History). The journal policy is to continue the tradition of mutual discussion between philosophers and scientists.
Is the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” a miracle that points to God? Wigner and Craig on the applicability of mathematics
Eugene Wigner’s 1960 article on the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” used the word “miracle” of the fit between abstract mathematics and physical reality. William Lane Craig has developed a theistic argument from Wigner’s hints, claiming that the best explanation of the “miraculous” fit is divine creation. It is argued that this argument does not succeed. An Aristotelian realist philosophy of mathematics renders the applicability of mathematics to physical reality unmysterious by showing that mathematics, like any other science, is a study of certain aspects of reality, hence there is no miracle of fit. However, that does not preclude other arguments for the existence of God involving mathematics, for example design arguments from the elegance of the universe’s structure, fine-tuning arguments or ones from the nature of mathematical understanding.
Copyright (c) 2025 Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
“Philosophy in science” and “science as philosophy”. Some selected philosophical views of Małgorzata Głódź
This article attempts to reconstruct and analyze some selected philosophical views of the Polish physicist Małgorzata Głódź, especially within the context of her links with the interdisciplinary milieu in Kraków (known as the “Kraków School of Philosophy in Science”). It emphasizes the significant role that Głódź played in the historical development of this intellectual tradition. The main portion of this article highlights the connections between Głódź’s philosophy and the philosophical ideas propagated by Michał Heller, the School’s main founder, and his students and other collaborators. The article also indicates elements of her philosophical achievements that deserve attention from the perspective of today’s philosophical challenges.
Tractability assumptions and derivational robustness, a match made in heaven?
The epistemology of modeling in science is a topic that has received no shortage of attention from both philosophers and scientists. Models, with their ubiquitous unrealistic and false assumptions, raise a myriad of interesting epistemic questions. Many have picked up a concern expressed by biologist Richard Levins, which is that, for many models, it is unclear if any particular result is a product of the realistic assumptions, or if the result, is in some critical way, dependent on an unrealistic assumption. His suggestion of a solution to this problem, the use of robustness analysis, has similarly been picked up by many as a plausible solution to this concern. Since Levins’ time, taxonomies of modeling assumptions and types of robustness analyses have been developed. One common connection made is that of tractability assumption, or assumptions introduced for the purpose of mathematical tractability, and derivational robustness analysis, or a robustness analysis that tests the influence of assumptions on the derivation of some result. Derivational robustness analysis is often singled out as being particularly well-suited for resolving the epistemic concerns introduced by tractability assumptions. In this paper, I argue that, despite how it is commonly approached in the literature, tractability assumptions do not present a consistent set of epistemic concerns. Given this, derivational robustness analysis cannot be used to resolve the epistemic concerns raised by all tractability assumptions. In use this to motivate some concerns about how well-suited the taxonomy that includes tractability assumptions is to discussions about the epistemic concerns of unrealistic modeling assumptions.
The synthetic a priori. Rejoinder to Linsbichler
Linsbichler is a gifted economist and philosopher. He delves mightily and thoroughly into the difficult thickets of basic praxeology, the methodology of the Austrian school of economics. Not content with merely probing the meaning and importance of the synthetic a priori, he pushes further into the very justification of this foundational element of Austrianism. I learned a lot from reading this splendid essay, most of with which I enthusiastically agree. However, there are a few divergences between the two of us, and the present paper is devoted to exploring them. My procedure in this response is one of mentioning numerous quotations from the author, interspersed with my own comments and reactions. That is because I greatly appreciate this gifted economist’s contribution to Austrian methodology. What are the specifics? One error is that he does accurately distinguish between analytic, empirical, and synthetic a priori. Another is his misunderstanding of “human action”. My debating partner opines that Mises (1998) merely suggests that human being act. In actual point of fact in the of this latter author, that is the very title of his most famous book, and contains the very core of praxeological economics. Then Linsbichler fails to accurately distinguish between mere behavior and human action. Further there is a dispute over the source of ideas. My learned colleague maintains it is empirical. I demur. He is of the opinion that empirical criticisms can be relevant to praxeological findings. I attempt to correct him on this matter. He takes the position can something can be “mildly aprioristic”. I demonstrate that this concept is an all or none phenomenon; no gradations.
Upholding human dignity in AI: Advocating moral reasoning over consensus ethics for value alignment
Artificial intelligence (AI) offers transformative advancements across sectors such as healthcare, agriculture, and environmental sustainability. However, a pressing ethical challenge remains: aligning AI systems with human values in a manner that is stable, coherent, and universally applicable. As AI increasingly mediates human perception, shapes social interactions, and influences decision-making, it raises profound ethical concerns about its impact on human dignity and social well-being. The prevailing consensus-based approach, advocated by figures such as Google DeepMind’s Iason Gabriel, suggests that AI ethics should reflect majority societal or political viewpoints. While this model offers flexibility, it also risks moral relativism and ethical instability as social norms fluctuate. This paper argues that consensus-based ethics are inadequate for safeguarding fundamental values—especially human dignity—which should not be subject to shifting public opinion. Instead, it advocates for a moral framework that transcends cultural and political trends, providing a stable foundation for AI ethics. Through case studies like social media recommendation algorithms that exploit users’ vulnerabilities, particularly those of children and teenagers, the paper highlights the risks of AI systems driven by profit-oriented metrics without ethical oversight. Drawing on insights from moral philosophy and theology, particularly the works of Joseph Ratzinger, it contends that aligning AI with moral reasoning is essential to uphold human dignity, prevent texploitation, and promote the common good.
Copyright (c) 2024 Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Ray Kurzweil's manifesto of technological utopia
"The Singularity Is Nearer" by Ray Kurzweil is a bold manifesto of technological optimism, envisioning a future where humanity transcends its limits. While thought-provoking, the book is criticized for being overly idealistic, neglecting the ethical, social, and existential dilemmas of such profound changes. It emphasizes possibilities without fully addressing the challenges, highlighting that technology alone cannot solve humanity's most pressing issues.
Homeostasis as a foundation for adaptive and emotional artificial intelligence
Homeostasis, a fundamental biological mechanism, enables living organisms to maintain internal balance despite changing environmental conditions. Inspired by these adaptive processes, research into artificial intelligence (AI) seeks to develop systems capable of dynamic adaptation, introspection, and empathetic interactions with users. This article explores the potential of implementing homeostatic mechanisms in AI as a foundation for emotional intelligence and self-regulation. Key questions include the distinction between simulation and actual experience, the role of machine introspection, and the emergence of qualitative states akin to phenomenal experiences. Drawing on Antonio Damasio’s theory and classical concepts from cybernetics, the article investigates how homeostatic principles might inspire the development of AI, paving the way for more flexible and context-aware technologies.
From a nitty-gritty debate within economics into the deep waters of philosophy of science. Introduction to the special issue of ZFN
It all started in 2021 when we sparked a rather specific debate within Austrian economics in Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce) – traditionally abbreviated as ZFN. The story unfolded as follows. First, Wysocki submitted a paper on the concept of indifference, as it is normally understood in the Austrian school of economics. To his astonishment and great relief, this then rising journal (now the one with well-established reputation, its Scopus ranking being as high as Q2 under the rubric of philosophy) accepted the submission in question and published it promptly in ZFN 71 as (Wysocki, 2021). It was an honour and a privilege, especially given the fact that Austrian economics – with all due respect to its scientific achievements – is nowadays not a mainstream economic current, to say the least. Hence, being published in ZFN only added to the strength of Wysocki’s belief that the journal is clearly unbiased towards any sort of philosophy of science. The very fact that Wysocki published a paper on indifference in Austrian economics and the fact that he spread the news about ZFN being also open to publishing maverick (after all, as already observed, Austrian economics is not a branch of mainstream economics) papers related to philosophy of science prompted Walter Block (a prominent Austrian economist) to submit to ZFN his rejoinder to Wysocki’s original paper on indifference, with the said response being ultimately published in ZFN 72 as (Block, 2022).
At the interface of theory and experience
The founding motto of philosophy in science is “tracking down big philosophical problems in contemporary science.” Knowing the basic history of philosophy and the history of science, we more or less know what “big philosophical topics” mean. The most representative topics of this kind include: time, space, causality, matter, life, consciousness, thinking... The tables of contents of philosophy textbooks could be copied to continue this list. These topics are big not only when they remain at a high level of generality, but also when they get down to special cases and particular sub-problems. Sometimes it is only then that they fully reveal their big format.
Copyright (c) 2023 Philosophical Problems in Science (Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Explaining the undecidability of first-order logic
Turing proved the unsolvability of the decision problem for first-order logic (Entscheidungsproblem) in his famous paper On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. From this proof it follows that attempts to specify a solution for the Entscheidungsproblem through pattern detection in automated theorem proving (ATP) must fail. Turing’s proof, however, merely predicts the non-existence of such solutions; it does not construct concrete examples that explain why specific attempts to solve the decision problem by pattern detection fail. ATP-search often runs in infinite loops in the case of unprovable, i.e. not refutable, formulas and one can ask why finite patterns of repeated inference steps cannot serve as criteria for unprovability. We answer this question by constructing pairs of formulas (ϕ,ϕ′) such that ϕ is provable (refutable) and ϕ′ is unprovable (satisfiable in an infinite domain) but all but the last proof step of the ATP-search for ϕ is a proper part of the endless ATP-search for ϕ′. We generate such pairs of formulas by mimicking computable sequences for a certain kind of universal Turing machine, namely, splitting Turing machines (STMs), via sequences of inference steps in ATP. In contrast to Turing’s and the textbooks’ method to formalize Turing machines, our method does not rely on further axioms and allows us to transfer the straightforward insight that the halting problem cannot be solved through pattern detection to the case of the Entscheidungsproblem. Our method is a constructive alternative to general undecidability proofs that explains why a scientific problem, namely the Entscheidungsproblem, is unsolvable in a specific way. This explanation provides a better understanding of the failure of pattern detection, which is of interest to: (i) the programmer, who is concerned with prospects and limits of pattern detection, (ii) the logician, who is interested in identifying logical properties by properties of an ideal notation, and (iii) the philosopher, who is interested in proof methods.
Orientation in the environment like perceiving affordances? Andrzej Lewicki’s account of cognition
The purpose of this article is to present Andrzej Lewicki’s account of cognition as orientation in the environment, comparing it with James J. Gibson’s ecological psychology. To do so, we conduct a comparative analysis of the former’s theory of indicators and the latter’s theory of affordance. The theoretical frame for our study is cognitive ecology, a research tradition characteristic of various studies of cognition, including contemporary ones. This allows us to show that, despite differences in the backgrounds and methodologies of these researchers, Lewicki can be considered one of the pioneers of contemporary ecological trends in cognitive science, although his influence has not been as widespread as that of Gibson. Our analysis proceeds in several steps. We begin with an overview of the biographies, backgrounds, and interests of the two researchers, as well as a brief introduction to cognitive ecology and related terms. Next, we discuss action/value indicators theory and affordances theory. We then compare Lewicki’s and Gibson’s approaches in more detail in terms of their use of similar research heuristics. The article ends with conclusions that go beyond historical issues.
Book review: Mechanistic Explanations in Physics and Beyond, Brigitte Falkenburg and Gregor Schiemann, editors, European Studies in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 11, Springer International Publishing, Cham 2019, pp.220
The nature and norms of scientific explanation: Some preliminaries
There are at least two deep and related debates about explanation: about its nature and about its norms. The aim of this special issue of Philosophical Problems in Science/Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce (ZFN) is to survey whether or not a consensus is at hand in these debates and to help settle what it can. The overarching foci are twofold: (i) the nature of scientific explanation, with special attention to the debate between ontic and epistemic conception of explanation, and (ii) the norms of scientific explanation, with special attention to so-called ‘ontic’ (or better, ‘alethic’) norms like truth and referential success and epistemic norms like intelligibility and idealized understanding. It called for advocates of various conceptions to articulate the current state of these debates. Researchers and scholars from around the globe—including Poland, Canada, Korea, The Netherlands, the United States, Greece, Austria, and Belgium—contributed. The special issue also attempts to provide an opening for new work on the norms of explanation, such as truth or model-based accuracy, information compression, abstraction, and generalization.
Philosophy in the context of physics and cosmology: Leszek M. Sokołowski’s philosophical views
The article attempts to reconstruct and analyze selected philosophical views of Leszek Sokołowski—a Krakow physicist and cosmologist who published many works dealing with issues on the border of science and philosophy (including metaphysics). An important aim of the article is also to place Sokołowski’s views in the context of the concept of “philosophy in science” (by M. Heller) and the phenomenon of the Kraków School of Philosophy in Science. In this paper, I suggest that Sokołowski’s views fit into the philosophy initiated by Michał Heller, and Sokołowski himself can be considered a member of the Kraków School of Philosophy in Science.
Are there really any errors in the Austrian theory of welfare?
This text reviews David Megger’s 2021 book entitled Justice in Welfare Economics. Libertarianism and the Austrian School (in Polish: Sprawiedliwość w ekonomii dobrobytu, liberatarianizm i szkoła austriacka). The review takes a critical approach, highlighting the most significant aspects of the presented considerations and emphasising their uniqueness and complexity. I intend to extensively discuss the author’s theses concerning the modification of the fundamental claims of Austrian school representatives about justice and welfare, highlighting both their strengths and weaknesses.
From philosophy in science to information in nature: Michael Heller’s ideas
This paper discusses the concept of information formulated by Michael (Michał) Heller. Heller—a philosopher, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and theologian—provided a complex image of information and its role in nature, which is rarely found in studies of information. Heller posited that the laws of nature may be interpreted as information, or as providing information, presenting this as a complementary view to scientific structuralism (not discussed in this paper). According to Heller, the informational content of a structure in nature is inversely proportional to that structure’s degree of freedom. The more constrained or complex a structure is, and the less likely it is to exist, the more information it contains. In Heller’s view, the concept of information in Shannon’s Theory of Communication (ToC) is inadequate for expressing the notion of information beyond a numerical measure of a signal structure. Information in Heller’s research closely aligns with the concepts of Jacquette’s and Perzanowski’s combinatorial ontology (concepts not discussed in this paper) and the general theory of information (GTI) of Mark Burgin, although Heller did not explicitly make these connections.
This review article discusses the book Understanding How Science Explains the World by Kevin McCain, published by Cambridge University Press (2022). With an impressive combination of clarity and depth, McCain provides the reader with a firm grasp of how science works, of what science aims to achieve, and of what makes science a successful epistemic enterprise. The review article reconstructs the book’s overall dialectic and identifies one potential point of tension which concerns the role of truth or accuracy in scientific knowledge.
The role of phronesis in Knowledge-Based Economy
The aim of this paper is to reflect on contemporary understanding of “knowledge” within the Knowledge-Based Economy. Since the pursuit of knowledge has been a longstanding focus of European culture since Greek philosophy, we employ the original ancient terminology. Applying the hermeneutics of ancient texts along with critical and comparative analysis can aid in differentiating between “knowledge” and “wisdom”, often linked in modern theories, while also connecting this issue to the Aristotelian concept of phronesis. The authors argue that since human relations impact social (and so—economic) spheres, the issue of phronesis, a relational type of knowledge, should not go unexamined. The idea that application of knowledge (rather than its mere acquisition), crucial for the Knowledge-Based Economy, was embedded in the Greek term oikonomiké, which provides a basis for considering oneself a phronimos. Our aim is to demonstrate the value of phronesis particularly in the fields of management and the philosophical foundations of economics, as the skills encompassed within it have the potential to aid in educating not only a “sage” but also an active member of the community, capable of acting in a manner that benefits both themselves and the society.
The interdisciplinary profile of theology—fashion or necessity?
This review pertains to the book Evolutionary Theology (Teologia ewolucyjna) written by Wojciech P. Grygiel and Damian Wąsek. The book presents a distinct and modern viewpoint on theology by offering a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics of theological language and utilizing it to reevaluate certain theological beliefs, such as the concept of original sin, within the framework of the ever-changing understanding of the Universe. This approach contributes significantly to the restoration of theology’s credibility in modern culture by bridging the gap between science and theology.
Ludwig Lachmann: A subjectivist institutionalist, but not a nihilist
The legacy of Ludwig Lachmann within the Austrian School of Economics is subject to several interpretations in the literature: though he clearly considered himself a member of the school and he influenced many Austrian economists, his particular methodological claims prompted Murray Rothbard to disavow him as a nihilist. In this article, we defend Lachmann by arguing that in order to defend his methodological stance he invoked extra-Austrian influences (Max Weber, G.L.S. Shackle). This way, he championed subjectivist institutionalism consistently both in theory and in practice. His approach leaves a peculiar, unorthodox, yet positive legacy for contemporary Austrian economics, not so far from the orthodox Misesian stance as it is broadly understood.
Philosophy in technology: A research program
Philosophy in technology is a research program that studies the philosophical roots of engineering and technology. Technologists, by virtue of their education, believe that the limits, goals, possibilities, and effects of technology on society and humankind are exclusively technological problems, hence their solutions must lie exclusively in technology. In contrast, philosophy in technology asserts that the resolutions to these problems need to be rooted in an understanding of their philosophical origins. This program paper defines the objectives of philosophy in technology, the kinds of questions it explores, the methods it uses, and how it differs from the philosophy of technology.
On the philosophy and logic of human action: A Neo-Austrian contribution to the methodology of the social sciences
Philosophical action theory seems to be in pretty good shape. The same may not be true for the study of human action in economics. Famous is the rant that the study of human action in economics gives reason to tremble for the reputation of the subject. But how does this come about? Since economic action is about action, the broader study must surely have a strong impact on the more specific field. The paper sets out, from the ground up, how an essential concept in economic theory–the concept of competition–can fundamentally benefit from insights derived exclusively from analytical action theory broadly conceived. In doing so, the paper delivers on an old Austrian promise: it is sometimes claimed that Austrian economists understand competition better than most economists. This may be a bold claim, since Austrian economists have neither traced the understanding of subjectivity to its very origin (the theory of intentionality), nor have they traced their sympathy for methodological individualism in relation to market processes to its very ground (the theory of (human) action). This paper aims to fill this gap. Moreover, by grounding an Austrian view of competition in analytic action theory, it succeeds in avoiding the serious problems of the dominant equilibrium approach. By explaining competition as rivalry, the paper draws on the philosophy and logic of human action to bring the (economic) agent back into play. In this way, a case is made for an integrated view of Austrian theory as an amalgam of Austrian economics and analytic action theory.
What Rothbard could have done but did not do: The merits of Austrian economics without extreme apriorism
Austrian economics emphasizes a priori components of social scientific theory. Most emphatically, Ludwig Mises and Murray Rothbard champion praxeology, a methodology often criticized as extremely aprioristic. Among the numerous justifications and interpretations of praxeology to be found in the primary and secondary literature, conventionalism avoids the charge of extreme apriorism by construing the fundamental axiom of praxeology as analytic instead of synthetic. This paper (1) explicates the tentative structure of the fundamental axiom, (2) clarifies some aspects of a conventionalist defense of praxeology, and (3) appraises conventionalist praxeology according to Rothbardian criteria. While Rothbard provides an essentialist justification of praxeology and embraces extreme apriorism, a mildly aprioristic conventionalist defense of praxeology fares better on Rothbard’s own criteria and is much more compatible with other contemporary methodological positions and economic theories.
A praxeology of the value of life. A critique of Rothbard’s argument
The present paper aims to study the issue of the value of life in Murray N. Rothbard’s work, and to examine his argument for the contention that “life should be an objective ultimate value” and that “the preservation and furtherance of one’s life takes on the stature of an incontestable axiom.” Rothbard’s assumptions and presuppositions are investigated and critically assessed. Using conceptual and logical analysis rooted mostly in the praxeological method of economics (as developed by Mises and Rothbard himself) and the theory of value (Scheffler, Raz, Elzenberg), it is demonstrated that Rothbard’s account is fallacious both on its own as well as on broader theoretical grounds. It is argued that what Rothbard could—under his specific assumptions about valuing—correctly claim is only that an actor values life to some extent, rather than that life has an objective ultimate value or preservation and furtherance of one’s life has an axiomatic status. The theoretical argument is supported by empirical illustration from suicide terrorism. The paper submits that Rothbard’s position on the value of life is unsound, and that using his argumentation as it stands cannot succeed.
Model uncertainty: When modeling risk leads to a pretense of knowledge
The main purpose of the paper is to develop a concept of model uncertainty as opposed to the existing and well-established concept of model risk. Up to date the broad literature on probability not only developed complete probability systems, but also correctly noticed limitations of probability calculus. Despite the acknowledgement of such probability restrictions, drawbacks of modeling are often related to model risk. We present an argument here to distinguish a feature limiting models even further: model uncertainty. The tenets of it already exist in the literature on probability, but were not properly emphasized while the idea of model risk was developed. Our plan it to start with a broad overview of the existing knowledge about probability in order to start with fundamental principles. From them we are deriving a new concept of model uncertainty.
Murray N. Rothbard’s Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics is the defining contribution outlining the Austrian school’s approach to welfare theory. A recent attack on this approach is by Wysocki and Dominiak (2023), who argue, contra Rothbard, that whether an exchange is welfare-enhancing is not necessarily related to whether that exchange is just, and therefore the Rothbardian framework is wrong. This paper shows that their argument misconceives how Austrians treat the concept of welfare. They also misunderstand the crucial role of the principle of demonstrated preference. Properly conceived, Rothbard’s reconstruction remains intact.
The ontic-epistemic debates of explanation revisited: The three-dimensional approach
After Wesley Salmon’s causal-mechanical stance on explanation in the 1980s, the ontic-epistemic debate of scientific explanations appeared to be resolved in the philosophy of science. However, since the twenty-first century, this debate has been rekindled among philosophers who focus on mechanistic explanations. Nevertheless, its issues have evolved, necessitating scrutiny of the new trends in this debate and a comparison with the original controversy between Carl Hempel and Salmon. The primary objective of this paper is to elucidate three categorical dimensions in the ontic-epistemic debates, spanning from the original to the recent controversies. Subsequently, it will explore why the conception of explanation is linked to representations, what conditions are necessary for linguistic expressions to be explanatory, and what roles norms play in explanation. Consequently, contrary to the common stereotype, it will be argued that mechanistic explanations are more likely to be epistemic rather than ontic.
Monarchy as private property government. A chiefly methodological critique
Hans-Hermann Hoppe famously argued that monarchy is superior to democracy insofar as property rights protection is concerned. The present paper calls this claim into question, with much of the heavy lifting being done by methodological ponderings. More specifically, it is demonstrated that instead of a priori, praxeological truths, Hoppe’s monarchy theory offers an ideal type of the politician bestowed with an inheritable title to the throne. Against this background, the ideal type in question is shown to be faulty in that it treats monarchs as capitalist landowners of sorts, thereby overlooking strictly political incentives they face, which can predictably push them in directions inimical to free markets.
Taxation and the philosophy of Frédéric Bastiat
Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was an economist and journalist. A member of the French Liberal School, he is best known for his free trade ideas and his philosophy of law. Mark Blaug ranks him as one of the 100 greatest economists before Keynes. Schumpeter called him a brilliant economic journalist. Haney devoted a chapter of his History of Economic Thought to Bastiat. Although Bastiat is known for his work on free trade and the philosophy of law, he also wrote on other topics. To date, almost no one has examined his views on taxation. The purpose of this paper is to fill that gap in the literature.
For the sake of simplicity: Applying software design parsimony to the content of information system ontologies
Although many information system ontologies (ISOs) claim to be parsimonious, the notion of parsimony seems to influence the debate on ISOs only at the level of vague and uncritical assumption. To challenge this trend, the paper aims to clarify what it means for ISOs to be parsimonious. Specifically, section 2 shows that parsimony in computer science generally concerns software design and, together with elegance, is one of the two aspects of the broader notion of simplicity. Section 3 transforms the main claims of parsimony in software design into claims about the content of ISOs, the combination of which is hereafter called “parsimony of content”—where “content” refers only to the content of ISOs. Sections 4-7 discuss the application of this parsimony to the design of ISOs, and outline different kinds (and combinations) of parsimony of content. Finally, section 8 considers whether parsimony of content could provide some criteria both for selecting and/or classifying the contents of ISOs and for choosing between different and equally consistent ISOs.