Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T04:27:22.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Science

The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge

Consensus, Controversy, and Coproduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2024

Boaz Miller
Boaz Miller
Affiliation:
Zefat Academic College

Summary

This Element is about the social dimensions of scientific knowledge. The first section asks in what ways scientific knowledge is social. The second section develops a conception of scientific knowledge that accommodates the insights of the first section, and is consonant with mainstream thinking about knowledge in analytic epistemology. The third section asks under what conditions we can tell, in the real world, that a consensus in a scientific community amounts to shared scientific knowledge, as characterized in the second section, and how to deal with scientific dissent. The fourth section reviews the ways epistemic and social elements mutually interact to coproduce scientific knowledge. This Element engages with literature from philosophy of science and social epistemology, especially social epistemology of science, as well as Science, Technology, and Society (STS), and analytic epistemology. The Element focuses on themes and debates that date from the start of the second millennium.
Get access

Keywords

science and valuestrust in scienceexpert testimonyscientific consensus and dissentcollective knowledge
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Science
Online ISBN: 9781108588782
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 06 February 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adam, Matthias. 2007. “Two Notions of Scientific Justification.” Synthese 158(1): 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth. 2011. “Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony.” Episteme 8(2): 144–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annis, David B. 1978. “A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification.” American Philosophical Quarterly 15(3): 213–219.Google Scholar
Avin, Shahar. 2019. “Centralized Funding and Epistemic Exploration.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70(3): 629–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baird, Davis. 2004. Thing Knowledge: A Philosophy of Scientific Instruments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ballantyne, Nathan. 2018. “Epistemic Trespassing.” Mind 128(510): 367–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballantyne, Nathan, Celniker, Jared B., and Dunning, David. 2022. “Do Your Own Research.” Social Epistemology, 1–16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2022.2146469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Barry, and Bloor, David. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Hollis, Martin and Lukes, Steven, eds., Rationality and Relativism, 1–20. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bateman, Grant A., and Napier, Brett D.. 2011. “External Hydrocephalus in Infants: Six Cases with MR Venogram and Flow Quantification Correlation.” Child’s Nervous System 27(12): 2087–2096.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty, John. 2006. “Masking Disagreement among Experts.” Episteme 3(1–2): 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beldecos, Athena, Bailey, Sarah, Gilbert, Scott, Hicks, Karen, Kenschaft, Lori, Niemczyk, Nancy, Rosenberg, Rebecca, Schaertel, Stephanie, and Andrew, Wedel. 1988. “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology.” Hypatia 3(1): 61–76.Google Scholar
Betz, Gregor. 2013. “In Defence of the Value-Free Ideal.” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3(2): 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin B. 2014. “Can Patents Prohibit Research? On the Social Epistemology of Patenting and Licensing in Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 45(1): 14–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biddle, Justin, and Leuschner, Anna. 2015. “Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science Be Epistemically Detrimental?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5(3): 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander., Bird 2022. Knowing Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blachowicz, James. 2009. “How Science Textbooks Treat Scientific Method: A Philosopher’s Perspective.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60(2): 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogen, James. 1985. “Traditional Epistemology and Naturalistic Replies to Its Skeptical Critics.” Synthese 64(2): 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgerson, Kirstin. 2011. “Amending and Defending Critical Contextual Empiricism.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1(3): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isabelle, Brocas, and Carrillo, Juan D.. 2008. “The Brain as a Hierarchical Organization.” American Economic Review 98(4): 1312–1346.Google Scholar
Brown, James R. 1994. Smoke and Mirrors: How Science Reflects Reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Matthew J. 2020. Science and Moral Imagination: A New Ideal for Values in Science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzzell, Andrew, and Rini, Regina 2023. “Doing Your Own Research and Other Impossible Acts of Epistemic Superheroism.” Philosophical Psychology 36(5): 906–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 2011. “Underdetermination as an Epistemological Test Tube: Expounding Hidden Values of the Scientific Community.” Synthese 180(2): 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2017. “Scientific Realism.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/scientific-realism.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. 2022. “Scientific Knowledge vs. Knowledge of Science: Public Understanding and Science in Society.” Science & Education 32: 1795–1812. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00376-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick. 1977. Theory of Knowledge, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Lorraine., Code 1993. “Taking Subjectivity into Account.” In Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth, eds., Feminist Epistemologies, 15–48. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M. 2010. “Elective Modernism.” sites.cardiff.ac.uk/harrycollins/files/2016/02/elective-modernism-4.doc.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M. 2014. Are We All Scientific Experts Now? Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M., and Pinch, Trevor. 1998. The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conee, Earl, and Feldman, Richard. 2004. Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, Diana. 1969. “Fashion in Science: Does It Exist?” Social Problems 16(4): 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, Adrian M., and Avin, Shahar. 2019. “Method Pluralism, Method Mismatch and Method Bias.” Philosophers’ Imprints 19(13): 1–22.Google Scholar
Dang, Haixin. 2019. “Do Collaborators in Science Need to Agree?” Philosophy of Science 86(5): 1029–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 1993. 509 U.S. 579.Google Scholar
de Melo-Martín, Inmaculada, and Intemann, Kristen. 2018. The Fight against Doubt: How to Bridge the Gap between Scientists and the Public. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeroen., de Ridder 2014. “Epistemic Dependence and Collective Scientific Knowledge.” Synthese 191(1): 37–53.Google Scholar
Jeroen., de Ridder 2019. “How Many Scientists Does It Take to Have Knowledge?” In McCain, Kevin and Kampourakis, Kostas, eds., What Is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science, 3–17. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dellsén, Finnur. 2021. “Consensus versus Unanimity: Which Carries More Weight?” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. In press. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/718273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellsén, Finnur. Forthcoming. “Disagreement and Consensus in Science.” In Baghramian, Maria, Carter, J. Adam, and Rowland, Richard, eds., The Routledge Handbook of Disagreement. philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19724/1/Dissent%20Draft14%20AcceptedWeb.pdf.Google Scholar
Dickhaut, John. 2009. “The Brain as the Original Accounting Institution.” The Accounting Review 84(6): 1703–1712. https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_pubs/33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67(4): 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2012. “Weighing Complex Evidence in a Democratic Society.” The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22(2): 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragos, Chris. 2016. “Which Groups Have Scientific Knowledge? Wray vs. Rolin.” Social Epistemology 30(5–6): 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragos, Chris. 2021. “Epistemic Autonomy and Group Knowledge.” Synthese 198(7): 6259–6279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1954. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliot, Kevin. 2022. Values in Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, Jeremy, and McGrath, Matthew. 2011. “Pragmatic Encroachment.” In Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, eds., The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, 558–578. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Faulkner, Paul R. 2018. “Collective Testimony and Collective Knowledge.” Ergo 5(4): 103–126.Google Scholar
Pinto, Fernández, Manuela, . 2014. “Philosophy of Science for Globalized Privatization: Uncovering Some Limitations of Critical Contextual Empiricism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 47:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Pinto, Manuela, and Hicks, Daniel J.. 2019. “Legitimizing Values in Regulatory Science.” Environmental Health Perspectives 127(3): 035001-1–035001-8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, Pinto, Manuela. 2022. “Science and Industry Funding.” In Inkheri Koskinen et al., eds., Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science, 164–173. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fisch, Menachem. 2017. Creativity Undecided: Toward a History and Philosophy of Scientific Agency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, Richard. 2005. “Justified Belief as Responsible Belief.” In Steup, Matthias and Sosa, Ernest, eds., Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 313–326. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Foley, Richard. 2012. When Is True Belief Knowledge? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frigg, Roman, and Hartmann, Stephan. 2020. “Models in Science.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/models-science/.Google Scholar
Fronek, Patricia, and Briggs, Lynne. 2018. “Faking Participant Identity: Vested Interests and Purposeful Interference.” Research Ethics 14(2): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galam, Serge. 2012. Sociophysics: A Physicist’s Modeling of Psycho-Political Phenomena. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1987. How Experiments End. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gardiner, Georgi. 2025. “Purpose in Nature: A Function-First Naturalistic Epistemology.” In DiPaolo, Josh and Oliveira, Luis, eds., Kornblith and His Critics. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gerken, Mikkel. 2019. “Pragmatic Encroachment on Scientific Knowledge?” In McGrath, Matthew and Kim, Brian, eds., Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology, 116–140. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gerken, Mikkel. 2022. Scientific Testimony: Its Roles in Science and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gettier, Edmund L. 1963. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis 23(6): 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 1988. Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 2002. “Scientific Cognition as Distributed Cognition,” In Carruthers, Peter, Stitch, Stephen, and Siegal, Michael, eds., The Cognitive Basis of Science, 285–299. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 2003. “The Role of Computation in Scientific Cognition.” Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 15(2): 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald N. 2012. “Scientific Cognition: Human Centered But Not Human Bound.” Philosophical Explorations 15(2): 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glosserman, Scott and Hill, Nic. 2010. Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia (Documentary Film). San Diego, CA: Underdog Pictures.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford C. 2010. Relying on Others: An Essay in Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford C. 2018. To the Best of Our Knowledge: Social Expectations and Epistemic Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford. C. 2021. “What Epistemologists of Testimony Should Learn from Philosophers of Science.” Synthese 199(5): 12541–12559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1976. “Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 73(20): 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1988. “Strong and Weak Justification.” Philosophical Perspectives 2: 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 2002. “Knowledge and Social Norms.” Science 296(June 21): 2148–2149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alison, Gopnik, and Meltzoff, Andrew N.. 1998. Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Green, Adam. 2016. The Social Contexts of Intellectual Virtue: Knowledge as a Team Achievement. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundersen, Torbjørn. 2018. “Scientists as Experts: A Distinct Role?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 69: 52–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Habgood-Coote, Joshua, and Stanley Tanswell, Fenner. 2023. “Group Knowledge and Mathematical Collaboration: A Philosophical Examination of the Classification of Finite Simple Groups.” Episteme 20(2): 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 2007. Kinds of People: Moving Targets. Proceedings of the British Academy 151: 285–318.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1985. “Epistemic Dependence.” Journal of Philosophy 82(7): 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1991. “The Role of Trust in Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy 88(12): 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvard, Stephanie, Winsberg, Eric, Symons, John, and Amin, Adibi. 2021. “Value Judgments in a COVID-19 Vaccination Model: A Case Study in the Need for Public Involvement in Health-Oriented Modelling.” Social Science & Medicine 286(114323): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvard, Stephanie, and Eric, Winsberg. 2022. “The Epistemic Risk in Representation.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 32(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heersmink, Richard. 2016. “The Cognitive Integration of Scientific Instruments: Information, Situated Cognition, and Scientific Practice.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 15(4): 517–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, David. 2011. “Gate-Keeping Contextualism.” Episteme 8(1): 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Daniel J. 2021. “When Virtues are Vices: ‘Anti-Science’ Epistemic Values in Environmental Politics.” Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology 14: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, Thomas T., and Kenett, Yoed N.. (2022). “Is the Mind a Network? Maps, Vehicles, and Skyhooks in Cognitive Network Science.” Topics in Cognitive Science 14(1): 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennet, and Kevin, C. Elliott. (2018). “The Promise and Perils of Industry-Funded Science.” Philosophy Compass 13: e12544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House of Commons Health and Social Care, and Science and Technology Committees. 2021. Coronavirus: Lessons Learned to Date. Sixth Report of the Health and Social Care Committee and Third Report of the Science and Technology Committee of Session 2021–22. HC 92. committees.parliament.uk/publications/7497/documents/78688/default.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Paul. 2009. “Network Epistemology.” Episteme 6(2): 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, Edwin. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2005. “Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 72(5): 1001–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2009. “Why Diversity Matters: Understanding and Applying the Diversity Component of the National Science Foundation’s Broader Impacts Criterion.” Social Epistemology 23(3–4): 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intemann, Kristen. 2015. “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Values in Climate Modeling.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5: 217–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eva, Jablonka, and Lamb, Marion J.. 2014. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in The History of Life. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Science at the Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1996. “Beyond Epistemology: Relativism and Engagement in The Politics of Science.” Social Studies of Science 26(32): 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004a. “The Idiom of Co-production.” In Jasanoff, Sheila, ed., States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, 1–12. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004b. “Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society.” In Jasanoff, Sheila, ed., States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and Social Order, 13–45. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004c. “What Inquiring Minds Should Want to Know.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35(1): 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. “Cosmopolitan Knowledge: Climate Science and Global Civic Epistemology.” In Dryzek, J., Norgaard, R. B., and Schlosberg, D., eds., Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, 129–143. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2012. “The Practices of Objectivity in Regulatory Science.” In Camic, Charles, Gross, Neil, and Lamont, Michèle, eds., Social Knowledge in the Making, 307–338. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 2015. “Cognitive Functions of Metaphor in the Natural Sciences.” Philosophical Inquiries 3(1): 113–132.Google Scholar
Keren, Arnon. 2013. “Kitcher on Well-Ordered Science: Should Science be Measured against the Outcomes of Ideal Democratic Deliberation?” Theoria 28(2): 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, Arnon. 2015. “Science and Informed, Counterfactual, Democratic Consent.” Philosophy of Science 82(5): 1284–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1992. “The Naturalists Return.” Philosophical Review 101(1): 53–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1994. “Contrasting Conceptions of Social Epistemology.” In Frederick, F. Schmitt, ed., Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge, 111–135. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. 1983. “Justified Belief and Epistemically Responsible Action.” Philosophical Review 92(1): 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 2010. Philosophy of Science after Feminism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 2000. The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca. 2010. “The Ethics and Cultural Politics of Reproductive Risk Warnings: A Case Study of California’s Proposition 65.” Health, Risk & Society 12(4): 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca. 2012. “‘Author TBD’: Radical Collaboration in Contemporary Biomedical Research.” Philosophy of Science 79(5): 845–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusch, Martin. 2002. Knowledge by Agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennifer., Lackey 2016. “What is Justified Group Belief?” Philosophical Review 125(3): 341–396.Google Scholar
Lahno, Bernd. 2001. “On the Emotional Character of Trust.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4: 171–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre, and Musgrave, Alan, eds. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Brendon. 2011. Metaphors for Environmental Sustainability: Redefining our Relationship with Nature. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 2004. “The Epistemic, the Cognitive, and the Social.” In Machamer, P. and Wolters, G., eds., Science, Values, and Objectivity, 14–23. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry, and Leplin, J. 1991. “Empirical Equivalence and Underdetermination.” The Journal of Philosophy 88(9): 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anat., Leibler 2014. “Disciplining Ethnicity: Social Sorting Intersects with Political Demography in Israel’s Pre-state Period.” Social Studies of Science 44(2): 271–292.Google Scholar
Lemetyinen, Henna. 2012. “Language Acquisition.” Simply Psychology (October 24). www.simplypsychology.org/language.html.Google Scholar
Levy, Arnon. 2020. “Metaphor and Scientific Explanation.” In Levy, Arnon and Godfrey-Smith, Peter, eds., The Scientific Imagination, 280–303. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Neil. 2022. “Do Your Own Research!” Synthese 200(5): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, Dyani. 2022. “Why the WHO Took Two Years to Say COVID Is Airborne.” Nature 604(7904): 26–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipton, Peter. 2007. “Alien Abduction: Inference to the Best Explanation and the Management of Testimony.” Episteme 4(3): 238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Gabrielle Y., Khan, Sadiya S., Colangelo, Laura A., Meza, Daniel, Washko, George R., Sporn, Peter H. S., Jacobs, David R. Jr, Dransfield, Mark T., Carnethon, Mercedes R. and Kalhan, Ravi. 2022. “Comparing Racial Differences in Emphysema Prevalence among Adults with Normal Spirometry: A Secondary Data Analysis of the CARDIA Lung Study.” Annals of Internal Medicine, in press. doi.org/10.7326/m22-0205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A. 1993. “Pre-Theoretical Assumptions in Evolutionary Explanations of Female Sexuality.” Philosophical Studies 69(2/3): 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2013. Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2016. “Underdetermination: A Dirty Little Secret?” STS Occasional Papers no. 4. London: Department of Science and Technology Studies, UCL.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. 2022. “What’s Social about Social Epistemology?” Journal of Philosophy 119(4): 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludeman, Kate, and Erlandson, Eddie. 2004. “Coaching the Alpha Male.” Harvard Business Review 82(5): 58–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Lugg, Andrew. 1978. “Disagreement in Science.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 9(2): 276–292.Google Scholar
Machamer, Peter, and Douglas, Heather. 1999. “Cognitive and Social Values.” Science & Education 8: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnus, P. D. 2018. “Science, Values, and the Priority of Evidence.” Logos and Episteme 9(4): 413–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Emily. 1990. “Toward an Anthropology of Immunology: The Body as Nation State.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 4(4): 410–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Emily. 1991. “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles.” Signs 16(3): 485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martini, Carlo, and Andreoletti, Mattia. 2021. “Genuine versus Bogus Scientific Controversies: The Case of Statins.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 43(110): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenna, Robin. 2022. “Is Knowledge a Social Phenomenon?” Inquiry doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2135823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernest. 1983. “Values in Science.” In Asquith, Peter D. and Nickles, Thomas, eds., PSA 1982 (Vol. 2), 3–28. East Lansing, MI: PSA.Google Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2013. “When Is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge from Mere Agreement.” Synthese 190(7): 1293–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2014a. “Catching the WAVE: The Weight-Adjusting Account of Values and Evidence.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 47: 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2014b. “Science, Values, and Pragmatic Encroachment on Knowledge.” European Journal for the Philosophy of Science 4(2): 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2015. “Why (Some) Knowledge Is the Property of a Community and Possibly None of Its Members.” The Philosophical Quarterly 65(260): 417–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2016. “Scientific Consensus and Expert Testimony in Courts: Lessons from the Bendectin Litigation.” Foundations of Science 21(1): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2019. “The Social Epistemology of Consensus and Dissent.” In Henderson, David, Graham, Peter, Fricker, Miranda, and Pedersen, Nikolaj, eds., The Routledge Companion to Social Epistemology, 228–239. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boaz., Miller 2021a. “Is Technology Value-Neutral?” Science, Technology, & Human Values 46(1): 53–80.Google Scholar
Miller, Boaz. 2021b. “When Is Scientific Dissent Epistemically Inappropriate?” Philosophy of Science 88(5): 918–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz. Forthcoming. “On the Relations between Individual and Communal Scientific Knowledge.”Google Scholar
Miller, Boaz, and Freiman, Ori. 2020. “Trust and Distributed Epistemic Labor.” In Simon, Judith, ed., The Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy, 341–353. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz, and Pinto, Meital. 2022. “Epistemic Equality: Distributive Epistemic Justice in the Context of Justification.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 32(2): 173–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, Boaz, and Record, Isaac. 2013. “Justified Belief in a Digital Age: On the Epistemic Implications of Secret Internet Technologies.” Episteme 10(2): 101–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Boaz, and Record, Isaac. 2017. “Responsible Epistemic Technologies: A Social-Epistemological Analysis of Autocompleted Web Search.” New Media & Society 19(12): 1945–1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest. 1979. Teleology Revisited and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Reproducibility and Replicability in Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/25303.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn H. 1993. “Epistemological Communities.” In Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth, eds., Feminist Epistemologies, 121–160. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nickles, Thomas. 2021. “Historicist Theories of Scientific Rationality.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/rationality-historicist.Google Scholar
Noddings, Nel. 2015. Philosophy of Education, 4th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Norton, John. 2008. “Must Evidence Underdetermine Theory?” In Carrier, Martin, Howard, Don A., and Kourany, Janet, eds., The Challenge of the Social and The Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited, 17–44. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Cailin. 2023. Modelling Scientific Communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1994. “Gender and the Biological Sciences.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24(sup1): 21–42.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2007. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?” In Joseph, F. C. DiMento and Doughman, Pamela, eds., Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, 65–99. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2019. Why Trust Science? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2021. Science on a Mission: How Military Funding Shaped What We Do and Don’t Know about the Ocean. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik M.. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Page, Scott E. 2017. The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Parker, Wendy S. 2020. “Model Evaluation: An Adequacy-for-Purpose View.” Philosophy of Science 87(3): 457–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pentland, Alex. 2014. Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread: The Lessons from a New Science. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
Perini, Laura. 2005. “Visual Representations and Confirmation.” Philosophy of Science 72(5): 913–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perini, Laura. 2012. “Truth-Bearers or Truth-Makers?” Spontaneous Generations 6(1): 142–147.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1970. “Normal Science and Its Dangers.” In Lakatos and Musgrave, 51–58.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Elizabeth. 1996. “Underdetermination Undeterred.” In Nelson, Lynn H., and Nelson, Jack, eds., Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science, 121–138. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince-Gibson, Eetta. 2020. “Israel Appointed 23 Experts to Lead Its Coronavirus Exit Strategy: None Are Women.” Haaretz (May 8). www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-05-08/ty-article/.premium/israel-appointed-23-experts-to-lead-its-coronavirus-exit-strategy-none-are-women/0000017f-e187-d568-ad7f-f3ef22110000.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Duncan. 2010. “Cognitive Ability and the Extended Cognition Thesis.” Synthese 175(S1): 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, Willard V. O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 60: 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans. 2017. “Which Scientific Knowledge is a Common Good?” Social Epistemology 31(5): 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranalli, Brent. 2012. “Climate Science, Character, and the ‘Hard-Won’ Consensus.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22(2): 183–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Record, Isaac, and Miller, Boaz. 2022. “People, Posts, and Platforms: Reducing the Spread of Online Toxicity by Contextualizing Content and Setting Norms.” Asian Journal of Philosophy 1(2): 1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s44204-022-00042-2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rehg, William, and Staley, Kent. 2008. “The CDF Collaboration and Argumentation Theory: The Role of Process in Objective Knowledge.” Perspectives on Science 16(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehg, William, and Staley, Kent. 2017. “‘Agreement’ in the IPCC Confidence Measure.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 57: 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riska, Elianne. 2010. “Coronary Heart Disease: Gendered Public Health Discourses.” In Kuhlmann, Ellen and Annandale, Ellen, eds., The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Healthcare, 158–171. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rolin, Kristina. 2004. “Why Gender Is a Relevant Factor in the Social Epistemology of Scientific Inquiry.” Philosophy of Science 71(5): 880–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolin, Kristina. 2009. “Scientific Knowledge: A Stakeholder Theory.” In van Bouwel, Jeroen, ed., The Social Sciences and Democracy, 62–80. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherrilyn., Roush 2005. Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rudner, Richard. 1953. “The Scientist qua Scientist Makes Value Judgments.” Philosophy of Science 20(1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, John T. and Robison, Wade L.. 1992. “Research Funding and the Value-Dependence of Science.” Business and Professional Ethics Journal 11(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheman, Naomi. 1995. “Feminist Epistemology.” Metaphilosophy 26(3): 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Jamie. 2023. “Peer Review, Innovation, and Predicting the Future of Science: The Scope of Lotteries in Science Funding Policy.” Philosophy of Science 90(5): 1297–1306. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Joseph. 2015. Testimony: A Philosophical Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, Paul. 2019. “Justified Group Belief Is Evidentially Responsible Group Belief.” Episteme 16(3): 262–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Arthur M. 2016. “The Whig History of Science: An Exchange.” The New York Review of Books (February 25). www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/02/25/the-whig-history-of-science-an-exchange.Google Scholar
Simon, Judith. 2010a. “The Entanglement of Trust and Knowledge on the Web.” Ethics and Information Technology 12(4): 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Judith. 2010b. “A Socio-epistemological Framework for Scientific Publishing.” Social Epistemology 24(3): 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. 1996. Science Without Myth: On Constructions, Reality, and Social Knowledge. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Slater, Matthew H., Huxster, Joanna K., Bresticker, Julia E., and LoPiccolo, Victor. 2020. “Denialism as Applied Skepticism: Philosophical and Empirical Considerations.” Erkenntnis 85: 871–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam. 2015. Making Medical Knowledge. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Miriam, and Richardson, Alan. 2005. “A Critical Context for Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 211–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solovey, Mark. 2021. Social Science for What? Battles over Public Funding for the “Other Sciences” at the National Science Foundation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Staley, Kent, and Cobb, Aaron. 2011. “Internalist and Externalist Aspects of Justification in Scientific Inquiry.” Synthese 182: 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanford, Kyle. 2010. Exceeding our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stegenga, Jacob. 2009. “Robustness, Discordance, and Relevance.” Philosophy of Science 76(5): 650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegenga, Jacob. 2011. “Is Meta-Analysis the Platinum Standard of Evidence?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 42(4): 497–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stegenga, Jacob. 2016. “Three Criteria for Consensus Conferences.” Foundations of Science 21(1): 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stegenga, Jacob. 2018. Medical Nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stich, Stephen. 1990. The Fragmentation of Reason: Preface to a Pragmatic Theory of Cognitive Evaluation. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. 1993. “Credentialing Scientific Claims.” Perspectives on Science 1(2): 153–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, Melanie. 2015. “Blockchain Thinking: The Brain as a Decentralized Autonomous Corporation.” IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 34(4): 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 2005. “Testimony, Credibility, and Explanatory Coherence.” Erkenntnis 63: 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollefsen, Deborah P. 2015. Groups as Agents. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Turner, Stephen. 2001. “What Is the Problem with Experts?” Social Studies of Science 31(1): 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valbuena, Valeria S. M., Merchant, Raina M., and Hough, Catherine L.. 2022. “Racial and Ethnic Bias in Pulse Oximetry and Clinical Outcomes.” JAMA Internal Medicine 182(7): 699–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vickers, Peter. 2023. Identifying Future-Proof Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
John, Vines, Clarke, Rachel, Wright, Peter, McCarthy, John, and Olivier, Patrick. 2013. “Configuring Participation: On How We Involve People in Design.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘13), 429–438. New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
Wagner, Roy. 2009. “Mathematical Marriages: Intercourse between Mathematics and Semiotic Choice.” Social Studies of Science 39(2): 289–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinberger, David. 2011. Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren’t the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wilholt, Torsten. 2009. “Bias and Values in Scientific Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, James. 1989. “Data and Phenomena.” Synthese 79: 393–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, Alison. 2003. “Why Standpoint Matters.” In Robert Figueroa, and Sandra G. Harding, eds., Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, 26–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wynne, Brian. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge
  • Boaz Miller, Zefat Academic College
  • Online ISBN: 9781108588782
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge
  • Boaz Miller, Zefat Academic College
  • Online ISBN: 9781108588782
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge
  • Boaz Miller, Zefat Academic College
  • Online ISBN: 9781108588782
Available formats
×