The Nature of Scientific Knowledge pp 237-252 | Cite as
Gaining Scientific Knowledge from Others
- 166k Downloads
Abstract
This chapter explores how we gain knowledge from other people. In particular two of the primary ways that we come to have social evidence are explored. The first is the most prevalent form of social evidence: testimony. This chapter examines some of the best explanations of how it is that we come to have knowledge via the testimony of others. The second way that we come to have social evidence is by learning of disagreements. This chapter explores the epistemic significance of disagreement as it occurs in science. In particular it discusses how we should respond when we discover that someone disagrees with us about a scientific claim. When we discover that equally informed experts in an area of science disagree we should refrain from believing one side or the other is correct until we have further deciding evidence. When novices discover that experts disagree with them concerning a scientific claim, the novices should defer to the experts.
Keywords
Local Reductionism Doxastic Attitude Positive Reason Testimonial Knowledge Average Summer TemperatureReferences
- Adler, J. (2014). Epistemological problems of testimony. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/testimony-episprob/
- Audi, R. (2011). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bratman, M. (1993). Shared intention. Ethics, 104, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Carey, B., & Matheson, J. (2013). How skeptical is the equal weight view? In D. E. Machuca (Ed.), Disagreement and skepticism (pp. 131–149). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Christensen, D. (2009). Disagreement as evidence: The epistemology of controversy. Philosophy Compass, 4, 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Christensen, D., & Lackey, J. (Eds.). (2012). The epistemology of disagreement: New essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Conee, E. (2009). Peerage. Episteme, 6, 313–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Elga, A. (2007). Reflection and disagreement. Nous, 41, 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Faulkner, P. (2000). The social character of testimonial knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 97, 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Faulkner, P. (2007). What is wrong with lying? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75, 535–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Feldman, R., & Warfield, T. (Eds.). (2010). Disagreement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Frances, B. (2014). Disagreement. In S. Bernecker & D. Pritchard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to epistemology (pp. 68–74). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Fricker, E. (1994). Against gullibility. In B. K. Matilal & A. Chakrabarti (Eds.), Knowing from words (pp. 125–161). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fricker, E. (1995). Critical notice: Telling and trusting: Reductionism and anti-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Mind, 104, 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Gleick, J. (2004). Isaac Newton. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, S. (2008). Testimonial knowledge in early childhood, revisited. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goldman, A. I. (2011). A guide to social epistemology. In A. Goldman & D. Whitcomb (Eds.), Social epistemology: Essential readings (pp. 11–37). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Harman, G. (1965). The inference to the best explanation. Philosophical Review, 74, 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Harris, P., & Corriveau, K. (2011). Young children’s selective trust in informants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B (Biological Sciences), 366, 1179–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hawking, S. (Ed.). (2002). On the shoulders of giants: The great works of physics and astronomy. Philadelphia: Running Press.Google Scholar
- Hinchman, E. S. (2005). Telling as inviting trust. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70, 562–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kornblith, H. (2013). Is philosophical knowledge possible? In D. E. Machuca (Ed.), Disagreement and skepticism (pp. 260–276). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lackey, J. (2005). Testimony and the infant/child objection. Philosophical Studies, 126, 163–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lackey, J. (2011). Testimony: Acquiring knowledge from others. In A. Goldman & D. Whitcomb (Eds.), Social epistemology: Essential readings (pp. 71–91). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lehrer, K. (2006). Testimony and trustworthiness. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 145–159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lewis, D. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Lipton, P. (2007). Alien abduction: Inference to the best explanation and the management of testimony. Episteme, 4, 238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- List, C. (2014). Three kinds of collective attitudes. Erkenntnis, 79, 1601–1622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Longino, H. (2013). The social dimensions of scientific knowledge. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/
- Machuca, D. E. (Ed.). (2013). Disagreement and skepticism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Malmgren, A.-S. (2006). Is there a priori knowledge by testimony? Philosophical Review, 115, 199–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Matheson, J. (2015a). Disagreement and epistemic peers. Oxford Handbooks Online in Philosophy. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935314-e-13?rskey=7HLZEJ&result=347
- Matheson, J. (2015b). The epistemic significance of disagreement. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Mill, J. S. (1859/2008). On liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Moran, R. (2006). Getting told and being believed. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 272–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Peirce, C. S. (1868). Some consequences of four incapacities. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2, 140–157.Google Scholar
- Peirce, C. S. (1878/1982). How to make our ideas clear. In H. S. Thayer (Ed.), Pragmatism: The classical writings (pp. 79–100). Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
- Pettit, P. (2003). Groups with minds of their own. In F. Schmitt (Ed.), Socializing metaphysics (pp. 167–193). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Quinton, A. (1975). The presidential address: Social objects. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 76, 1–27.Google Scholar
- Rupert, R. (2011). Empirical arguments for group minds: A critical appraisal. Philosophy Compass, 6, 630–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schiffer, S. (1972). Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Schiffer, S. (2003). The things we mean. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
- Shatz, D. (2004). Peer review: A critical inquiry. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
- Wilson, R. A. (2004). Boundaries of the mind: The individual in the fragile sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar