Advertisement

Fuller’s Social Epistemology and Epistemic Agency

  • Francis X Remedios
  • Val Dusek
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is on agent-oriented social epistemology, which emphasizes epistemic agency or the knower as ontologically open. This is from Fuller’s move to transhumanist in which to knower is enhanced to become disembodied. Fuller views the epistemic agent to make knowledge to act in the world as contrasted to analytic social epistemology’s epistemic agent, who is a human knower with beliefs and does not make knowledge through construction of reality. There is also a discussion of cognitive economics in which the epistemic agent makes knowledge and leverages beliefs to action instead of the epistemic agent having beliefs to access knowledge.

Keywords

Transhumanism Agency Agent-oriented social epistemology 

References

  1. Abir-Am, P. (1983). The Discourse of Physical Power and Biological Knowledge in the 1930s: A Reappraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation’s ‘Policy’ in Molecular Biology. Social Studies of Science, 12(3), 241–282.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, R. (1992). Impure Science: Fraud, Compromise, and Political Influence in Scientific Research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, R. L. (1990). Nazi Science: The Dachau Hypothermia Experiments. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(20), 1435–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, N., & Dworkin, G. (1976). The IQ Controversy. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, A. (2006, March 6). When Evolutionists Attack. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/06/religion.uk
  6. Callon, M. (1986). Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, A. (Ed.). (1992). When Medicine Went Wrong: Bioethics and the Holocaust. Totowa: Humana Press.Google Scholar
  8. Delgado, J. M. (1969). Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  9. Downes, S. (2000). Review of Science by Steve Fuller. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 30(1), 140–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elgin, C. (2013). Epistemic Agency. Theory and Research in Education, 11(2), 135–152.Google Scholar
  11. Fuller, S. (2000, February 22). E-mail to Remedios.Google Scholar
  12. Fuller, S. (2013). The Dawn of Critical Neuroscience. History of the Hunab Sciences, 26(3), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuller, S. (2014). Knowledge: The Philosophical Quest in History. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, S. (2016a). The Academic Caesar: University Leadership Is Hard. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuller, S. (2016b). A Sense of Epistemic Agency Fit for Social Epistemology. In P. Reider (Ed.), Social Epistemology and Epistemic Agency (pp. 21–42). London: Rowman International.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbs, M. L. (2011). Love Canal: The Story Continues. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gorley, M., & Fellet, M. F. (2015). The Pauling-Teller Debate: A Tangle of Expertise and Values. Issues in Science and Technology, 31(4, Summer), 78–82.Google Scholar
  18. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krimsky, S. (2004). Science in the Private Interest: Has Corrupted Biomedical Research? Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Labinger, J. (2013). Up from Generality: How Inorganic Chemistry Finally Became a Respectable Field. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action, How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Levine, A. G. (1982). Love Canal: Science, Politics, People. Lanham, MD.: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. Lynch, W. (2001). Solomon’s Child. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lynch, W. (2016). Social Epistemology Transformed: Steve Fuller’s Account of Knowledge as a Divine Spark for Human Domination. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. https://social-epistemology.com/2016/05/26/social-epistemology-transformed-steve-fullers-account-of-knowledge-as-a-divine-spark-for-human-domination-william-t-lynch/
  25. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  26. Peirce, C. S. (1958). Note on the Theory of the Economy of Research. In A. W. Burks (Ed.), Collected Papers (Vol. 7, pp. 76–83). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Penfield, W. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Penfield, W. (1975). The Mystery of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pérez-Ramos, A. (1988). Francis Bacon’s Idea of Science and the Maker’s Knowledge Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Remedios, F. (2003a). Legitimizing Scientific Knowledge. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  31. Remedios, F. (2003b). Fuller and Rouse on the Legitimation of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33(4), 444–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Remedios, F., & Dusek, V. (2016). Fuller’s Social Epistemology and Epistemic Agency. In P. J. Reider (Ed.), Social Epistemology and Epistemic Agency (pp. 61–74). London: Rowman and Littlefield International.Google Scholar
  33. Rescher, N. (1989). Cognitive Economy: Economic Perspectives in the Theory of Knowledge. Pittsburgh: University Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  34. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2003). Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Philosophically. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Rouse, J. (2002). How Scientific Practices Matter: Reclaiming Philosophical Naturalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Rouse, J. (2003). Remedios and Fuller on Normativity and Science. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 33, 464–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmidt, J. C. (2011). Toward an Epistemology of Nano-technosciences: Probing Technoscience from a Historical Perspective: On Today’s Surprising Prevalence and Relevance of Francis Bacon. Poiesis & Praxis, 8, 103–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0104-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Snyderman, M., & Rothman, S. (1988). The IQ Controversy: The Media and Public Policy. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Taubes, G. (2002, April). Postol Versus the Pentagon. Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/401412/postol-vs-the-pentagon/
  41. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional Versus Intuitive Reasoning: The Conjunction Fallacy in Probabilistic Reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 293–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zimbardo, P. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis X Remedios
    • 1
  • Val Dusek
    • 2
  1. 1.EdmontonCanada
  2. 2.University of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations