Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T14:23:08.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Introduction: When Difference Makes a Difference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Alison Wylie
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Taking seriously the social dimensions of knowledge puts pressure on the assumption that epistemic agents can usefully be thought of as autonomous, interchangeable individuals, capable, insofar as they are rational and objective, of transcending the specificities of personal history, experience, and context. If this idealization is abandoned as the point of departure for epistemic inquiry, then differences among situated knowers come sharply into focus. These include differences in cognitive capacity, experience, and expertise; in access to information and the heuristics that make it intelligible; and in motivating interests and orienting standpoint. Dissent takes on rather different significance, as a potentially productive feature of epistemic life rather than evidence of a failure of aperspectivality or an indication of error. The central questions are, then, what forms of diversity are epistemically consequential, and how can they best be deployed to ensure that the beliefs we warrant as knowledge are as well grounded and truth-tracking as possible.

Information

Type
Introduction
Information
Episteme , Volume 3 , Issue 1-2 , June 2006 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

References

REFERENCES

Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair Science: Women in the Scientific Community. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. I. (2001). “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85–109.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999). A Study on the Status of women Faculty in Science at MIT. The MIT Faculty Newsletter vol. 11, no. 4. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1942). “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order,” Journal of Legal and Political Sociology 1: 115–26.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1869). On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green.Google Scholar
Narayan, U. (1988). “Working Together Across Difference: Some Considerations of Emotions and Political Practice,” Hypatia 3(2): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, M. (2001). Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, M. (2006). “Groupthink vs. Th e Wisdom of the Crowds: Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent.” Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (supplement): 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnert, G. and Holton, G. (1995). Who Succeeds in Science? The Gender Dimension. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. (2003). “Why Standpoint Matters.” In Figueroa, R. and Harding, S. (eds.), Philosophical Explorations of Science, Technology, and Diversity, pp. 26–48. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar