Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:30:17.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MEMBERSHIP AND KNOWLEDGE. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AS A GROUP ACTIVITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2014

Silvia Tossut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much scientific research is characterized by a high degree of multidisciplinarity and interdependence between the experts. In these cases research may be described as a group activity, and as such analysed in terms of the intentions of the participants. In this paper I apply Bratman's notion of shared intentionality to explain the relations between social and epistemic elements in groups with a truth-oriented common goal. I argue that in truth-oriented activities the disposition to help – which is a constitutive part of Bratman's notion of shared intentionality – takes the form of a commitment not to lie, and that mutual knowledge of this commitment gives the members an entitlement to rely on other members' testimonies. Thus, in truth-oriented group activities, common knowledge of the disposition toward mutual support gives epistemic relevance to cooperation. Scientific research is shaped by the coexistence of social and epistemic elements: social relations influence knowledge attributions, and the epistemic goal of the activity confers a particular character to these relations.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 349 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adler, J. 2012. ‘Epistemological Problems of Testimony.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/testimony-episprob/.Google Scholar
Bacharach, M. 2006. Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, Gold, N. and Sugden, R. (eds). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. 2010. ‘Social Knowing: The Social Sense of “Scientific Knowledge”.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 24, Epistemology: 23–55.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 1992. ‘Shared Cooperative Activity.’ Philosophical Review, 101: 327–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 1993. ‘Shared Intention.’ Ethics, 104: 97–113.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 1999. Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. 2010. ‘Agency, Time and Sociality.’ Proceedings and Addresses of APA, 84: 2.Google Scholar
Corlett, A. J. 2007. ‘Analyzing Social Knowledge.’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 231–47.Google Scholar
Fallis, D. 2007. ‘Collective Epistemic Goals.’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 267–80.Google Scholar
Faulkner, P. 2000. ‘The Social Character of Testimonial Warrant.’ Journal of Philosophy 97: 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faulkner, P. 2011. Knowledge on Trust. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. 2002. ‘Distributed Cognition in Epistemic Cultures.’ Philosophy of Science 66: 637–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, R. N. 2007. ‘Distributed Cognition without Distributed Knowing.’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 313–20.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1989. On Social Facts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 2000. ‘Collective Belief and Scientific Change.’ In Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory, pp. 37–49. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 2001. ‘Collective Preferences, Obligations, and Rational Choice.’ Economics and Philosophy 17: 109–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. 2004. ‘Collective Epistemology.’ Episteme, 1: 95–107.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 2009. ‘Shared Intention and Personal Intentions.’ Philosophical Studies, 144: 167–87.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, M. M. 1989. ‘Bodies Politic: The Progressive History of Organizational “Real Entity” Theory.’ University of Pittsburgh Law Review 50: 575–654.Google Scholar
Hakli, R. 2006. ‘Group Beliefs and the Distinction between Belief and Acceptance.’ Cognitive Systems Research 7: 286–97.Google Scholar
Hakli, R. 2007. ‘On the Possibility of Group Knowledge Without Belief.’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 249–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardwig, J. 1985. ‘Epistemic Dependence.’ Journal of Philosophy, 82: 335–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P. 2002. ‘Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result.’ Economics and Philosophy, 18: 89–110.Google Scholar
List, C. and Pettit, P. 2011. Group Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiesen, K. 2007. ‘Introduction to Special Issue of Social Epistemology on “Collective Knowledge and Collective Knowers”.’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 209–16.Google Scholar
McLean, J. 1999. ‘Personality and Public Law Doctrine.’ University of Toronto Law Journal, 49: 123–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preyer, G. 2003. ‘What is Wrong with Rejectionists?’ In Interpretation, Language and the Social: Philosophical Articles, pp. 237–55. Frankfurt am Main: Humanities Online.Google Scholar
Quinton, A. 1975. ‘Social Objects.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 76: 1–27.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 1993. The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. 2007. ‘Joining the Dots.’ In Brennan, G., Goodin, R., Jackson, F. and Smith, M. (eds), Common Minds: Themes from the Philosophy of Philip Pettit, pp. 215–344. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runciman, D. 1997. Pluralism and the Personality of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, F. 1994. ‘The Justification of Group Beliefs.’ In Schmitt, F. F. (ed.), Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge, pp. 257–88. Lanham, MD: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1990. ‘Collective Intentions and Actions.’ In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. L. and Pollack, M. E. (Eds), Intentions in Communications, pp. 401–16. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 2010. Making the Social World. The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Staley, K. W. 2007. ‘Evidential Collaborations: Epistemic and Pragmatic Considerations in “Group Beliefs”.’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 321–35.Google Scholar
Tollefsen, D. 2002. ‘Organizations as True Believers.’ Journal of Social Philosophy, 23: 395–410.Google Scholar
Tollefsen, D. 2003. ‘Rejecting Rejectionism.’ Protosociology, 33: 389–408.Google Scholar
Tollefsen, D. 2007. ‘Group Testimony.’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 298–311.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 1992. ‘Group Beliefs.’ Synthese, 91: 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. 1995. The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2000. ‘Belief versus Acceptance.’ Philosophical Explorations, 2: 122–37.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2004. ‘Group Knowledge Analyzed.’ Episteme, 1: 109–27.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, B. 2001. ‘Collective Belief and Acceptance.’ Synthese, 129: 319–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, B. 2002. ‘The Epistemic Significance of Collaborative Research.’ Philosophy of Science, 69: 150–68.Google Scholar
Wray, B. 2003. ‘What Really Divides Gilbert and the Rejectionists?’ Protosociology, 18–19: 363–76.Google Scholar
Wray, B. 2007. ‘Who has Scientific Knowledge?’ Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 21: 337–47.Google Scholar
Wray, B. 2010. ‘Introduction: Collective Knowledge and Science.’ Episteme, 7: 181–4.Google Scholar