The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

What is the epistemic position that a scientist must be in vis-à-vis a proposition, p, to be in a good enough epistemic position to assert that p to a fellow scientist within the scientific process? My aim is to provide an answer to this question and, more generally, to connect the epistemological debates about the epistemic norms of assertion to the debates about the nature of the scientific process. The question is important because science is a collaborative enterprise based on a division of labor. It has even been suggested that such collaboration is a part of the scientific method. However, scientific collaboration depends upon communication between scientists—that is, intra-scientific testimony. After distinguishing some different kinds of intra-scientific testimony (Section 2), I provide a specific proposal for an epistemic norm of assertion that generally governs such testimony (Section 3). I argue that the proposal aligns with the requirements of three scientific virtues—replicability, revisability, and accountability (Section 4). The discussion of replicability considers a prominent debate in the social and cognitive sciences. In conclusion, I consider some of the wider questions raised by characterizing scientific collaboration, division of labor, and more generally, scientific method via intra-scientific testimony (Section 5).
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPhilosophy of the Social Sciences
Vol/bind45
Udgave nummer6
Sider (fra-til)568–595
ISSN0048-3931
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2015
Udgivet eksterntJa

Fingeraftryk

testimony
division of labor
science
responsibility
Epistemic Norms
Testimony
communication
Norms of Assertion
Division of Labor
Scientific Method
Scientific Collaboration

Citer dette

@article{5a89e3cc6a984f6f80cdade00d298b14,
title = "The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony",
abstract = "What is the epistemic position that a scientist must be in vis-{\`a}-vis a proposition, p, to be in a good enough epistemic position to assert that p to a fellow scientist within the scientific process? My aim is to provide an answer to this question and, more generally, to connect the epistemological debates about the epistemic norms of assertion to the debates about the nature of the scientific process. The question is important because science is a collaborative enterprise based on a division of labor. It has even been suggested that such collaboration is a part of the scientific method. However, scientific collaboration depends upon communication between scientists—that is, intra-scientific testimony. After distinguishing some different kinds of intra-scientific testimony (Section 2), I provide a specific proposal for an epistemic norm of assertion that generally governs such testimony (Section 3). I argue that the proposal aligns with the requirements of three scientific virtues—replicability, revisability, and accountability (Section 4). The discussion of replicability considers a prominent debate in the social and cognitive sciences. In conclusion, I consider some of the wider questions raised by characterizing scientific collaboration, division of labor, and more generally, scientific method via intra-scientific testimony (Section 5).",
author = "Mikkel Gerken",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1177/0048393115600527",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "568–595",
journal = "Philosophy of the Social Sciences",
issn = "0048-3931",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "6",

}

The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony. / Gerken, Mikkel.

I: Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Bind 45, Nr. 6, 2015, s. 568–595.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony

AU - Gerken, Mikkel

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - What is the epistemic position that a scientist must be in vis-à-vis a proposition, p, to be in a good enough epistemic position to assert that p to a fellow scientist within the scientific process? My aim is to provide an answer to this question and, more generally, to connect the epistemological debates about the epistemic norms of assertion to the debates about the nature of the scientific process. The question is important because science is a collaborative enterprise based on a division of labor. It has even been suggested that such collaboration is a part of the scientific method. However, scientific collaboration depends upon communication between scientists—that is, intra-scientific testimony. After distinguishing some different kinds of intra-scientific testimony (Section 2), I provide a specific proposal for an epistemic norm of assertion that generally governs such testimony (Section 3). I argue that the proposal aligns with the requirements of three scientific virtues—replicability, revisability, and accountability (Section 4). The discussion of replicability considers a prominent debate in the social and cognitive sciences. In conclusion, I consider some of the wider questions raised by characterizing scientific collaboration, division of labor, and more generally, scientific method via intra-scientific testimony (Section 5).

AB - What is the epistemic position that a scientist must be in vis-à-vis a proposition, p, to be in a good enough epistemic position to assert that p to a fellow scientist within the scientific process? My aim is to provide an answer to this question and, more generally, to connect the epistemological debates about the epistemic norms of assertion to the debates about the nature of the scientific process. The question is important because science is a collaborative enterprise based on a division of labor. It has even been suggested that such collaboration is a part of the scientific method. However, scientific collaboration depends upon communication between scientists—that is, intra-scientific testimony. After distinguishing some different kinds of intra-scientific testimony (Section 2), I provide a specific proposal for an epistemic norm of assertion that generally governs such testimony (Section 3). I argue that the proposal aligns with the requirements of three scientific virtues—replicability, revisability, and accountability (Section 4). The discussion of replicability considers a prominent debate in the social and cognitive sciences. In conclusion, I consider some of the wider questions raised by characterizing scientific collaboration, division of labor, and more generally, scientific method via intra-scientific testimony (Section 5).

U2 - 10.1177/0048393115600527

DO - 10.1177/0048393115600527

M3 - Journal article

VL - 45

SP - 568

EP - 595

JO - Philosophy of the Social Sciences

JF - Philosophy of the Social Sciences

SN - 0048-3931

IS - 6

ER -