Evidential collaborations: Epistemic and pragmatic considerations in "group belief"

Social Epistemology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 321-335

  Staley, Kent W ^a  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence; Experiment; Group Belief; Heterogeneous Consensus; Particle Physics; Scientific Collaboration

Indexed keywords

EID: 36248953107     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720701674247     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Abe, F., M. G. Albrow, et al. [CDF]. 1994, Evidence for top quark production in [pbar]p collisions at √s = 1.8 TeV. Physical Review D 50 (5): 2966-3026.
2. Beller, Mara. 1999. Quantum dialogue: The making of a revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Bouvier, Alban. 2004. Individual beliefs and collective beliefs in sciences and philosophy: The plural subject and the polyphonic subject accounts. Philosophy of the social sciences 34 (3): 382-407.
4. Frisch, Henry. 2004. The twin questions of authorship and the reproducibility of results in large scientific collaborations. Paper presented at 2004 meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.
5. Giere, Ronald. 2002. Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In The cognitive basis of science, edited by Peter Carruthers, Stephen Stich, and Michael Siegal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Gilbert, Margaret. 1987. Modelling collective belief. Synthese 73 (1): 185-204.
7. Gilbert, Margaret. 1994. Remarks on collective belief. In Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge, edited by Frederick Schmitt. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
8. Gilbert, Margaret. 2002. Belief and acceptance as features of groups. Protosociology 16: 35-69.
9. Goldman, Alvin. 1986. Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Goldman, Alvin. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Hull, David. 1988. Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, second edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. List, Christian. 2006. The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics 116 (2): 362-402.
14. List, Christian, and Philip Pettit. 2002. Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18 (1): 89-110.
15. Mathieson, Kay. 2006. The epistemic features of group belief. Episteme 2 (3): 161-75.
16. McMahon, Christopher. 2003. Two modes of collective belief. Protosociology 18-19: 347-62.
17. Meijers, Anthonie. 2003. Why accept collective beliefs? A reply to Gilbert. Protosociology 18-19:377-88.
18. Pauly, Marc, and Martin van Hees. 2006. Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (6): 569-85.
19. Pettit, Philip. 2001. Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11: 268-99.
20. Rehg, William, and Kent Staley. 2008. The CDF collaboration and argumentation theory: The role of process in objective knowledge. Perspectives on Science.
21. Staley, Kent. 2004. The evidence for the top quark: Objectivity and bias in collaborative experimentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Tollefsen, Deborah. 2002. Challenging epistemic individualism. Protosociology 16: 86-117.
23. Tollefsen, Deborah. 2003. Rejecting rejectionism. Protosociology 18-19: 389-405.
24. Wray, K. Brad. 2001. Collective belief and acceptance. Synthese 129 (3): 319-33.
25. Wray, K. Brad. 2003. What really divides Gilbert and the rejectionists? Protosociology 18-19: 363-76.