Who has scientific knowledge?

Social Epistemology

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 337-347

  Wray, K Brad ^a  

^a STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT OSWEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Collective Knowing; Organic Solidarity; Research Teams; Scientific Community; Scientific Knowledge

Indexed keywords

EID: 36248971568     PISSN: 02691728     EISSN: 14645297     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02691720701674288     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Barker, P. 2000. The role of religion in the Lutheran response to Copernicus. In Rethinking the scientific revolution, edited by M. Osier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Cohen, L. J. 1992. An essay on belief and acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
3. Durkheim, E. 1893/1984. The division of labor in society. Translated by W. D. Halls, with introduction by L. A. Coser. New York: The Free Press.
4. Giere, R. N. 2002a. Distributed cognition in epistemic cultures. Philosophy of Science 69 (4): 637-44.
5. Giere, R. N. 2002b. Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Giere, R. N., and B. Moffatt. 2003. Distributed cognition: Where the cognitive and the social merge. Social Studies of Science 33 (2): 301-10.
7. Gilbert, M. 1987. Modeling collective belief. Synthese, 73 (1): 185-204.
8. Gilbert, M. 1989. On social facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9. Gilbert, M. 1994. Remarks on collective belief. In Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge, edited by F. Schmitt. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
10. Gilbert, M. 2000. Collective belief and scientific change. In Sociality and responsibility: New essays in plural subject theory, edited by M. Gilbert. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher.
11. Hacking, I. 1992. The disunified sciences. In The end of science: Attack and defense, edited by R. Q. Elvee. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
12. Hacking, I. 2000. How inevitable are the results of successful science? Philosophy of Science: PSA 1998 (Suppl) 67 (3):S58-71.
13. Hardwig, J. 1985. Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy 82 (7): 335-49.
14. Hull, D. L. 1988. Science as a process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
15. Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Kitcher, P. 1993. Advancement of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17. Kitcher, P. 1994. Contrasting conceptions of social epistemology. In Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge, edited by F. Schmitt. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
18. Knorr Cetina, K. 1999. Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19. Kuhn, T. S. 1996. Structure of scientific revolutions, third edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
21. Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. Longino, H. E. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23. Nelson, H. L. 1990. Who knows: From Quine to feminist epistemology. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
24. Quinton, A. 1975. Social objects. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76:1-27.
25. Shapin, S. 1994. A social history of truth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26. Thagard, P. 1999. How scientists explain disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27. Van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. Scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
28. Wray, K. B. 2001. Collective belief and acceptance. Synthese 129 (3): 319-33.
29. Wray, K. B. 2003. Is science really a young man's game? Social Studies of Science 33 (1): 137-49.
30. Wray, K. B. 2006. Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37 (3): 505-14.