Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T14:21:51.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Passive Consensus and Active Commitment in the Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Alban Bouvier
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Gilbert (2000) examined the issue of collective intentionality in science. Her paper consisted of a conceptual analysis of the negative role of collective belief, consensus, and joint commitment in science, with a brief discussion of a case study investigated by Thagard (1998a, 1998b). I argue that Gilbert's concepts have to be refined to be empirically more relevant. Specifically, I distinguish between different kinds of joint commitments. I base my analysis on a close examination of Thagard's example, the discovery of Helicobacter pylori, and two other historical cases involving the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics and the Austrian school of economics. I also argue that it is difficult to fulfill the condition of common knowledge, even in Gilbert's weak sense. I conclude by raising serious doubts about the very possibility of a certain type of joint commitment, which I refer to as an implicit joint commitment.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , October 2010 , pp. 185 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beller, Mara. 1999. Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boettke, Peter J. (ed.). 1994a. The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, Peter J. 1994b. “Introduction.” In Boettke, (1994a), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Bouvier, Alban. 2004. “Individual Beliefs and Collective Beliefs in Sciences and Philosophy: The Plural Subject and the Polyphonic Subject Accounts: Case Studies.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34(3): 382–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouvier, Alban. 2007a. “Qu'est-ce qu'un ‘engagement de groupe’ en sciences sociales? L'exemple de l'école autrichienne en économie (de Carl Menger à Murray Rothbard).” In Bouvier, A. & Conein, B. (eds.), L'épistémologie sociale, pp. 255–94. Paris: EHESS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouvier, Alban. 2007b. “Collective Belief, Acceptance, and Commitment in Science: The Copenhagen School Example.” Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly 56: 91–118.Google Scholar
Chevalley, Catherine. 1991. “Introduction.” In Chevalley, C. (ed.), Niels Bohr, Physique atomique et connaissance humaine. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. 1992. An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cowen, Tyler. 1991. “What is Austrian Economics?” Unpublished manuscript, George Mason University.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 1989. On Social Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 1994. “Durkheim and Social Facts.” In Pickering, W. and Martins, H. (eds.), Debating Durkheim, pp. 86–109. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 1996. Living Together: Rationality, Sociality, and Obligation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 2000. “Collective Belief and Scientific Change.” In Sociality and Responsibility, pp. 37–49. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret. 2002. “Belief and Acceptance as Features of Groups.” Protosociology 16: 35–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. S. and Worsley, B. W.. 1993. “The Helicobacter Genus: The History of H. pylori and Taxonomy of Current Species.” In Goodwin, C. S. and Worsley, B. W. (eds.), Helicobacter pylori: Biology and Clinical Practice, pp. 1–13. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hardwig, John. 1985. “Epistemic Dependence.” The Journal of Philosophy 82: 335–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Don. 2004. “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’: A Study in Mythology.” Philosophy of Science 71: 669–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David. K. 1969. Convention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Machlup, Fritz. 1981. “Ludwig von Mises: A Scholar Who Would Not Compromise.” In Andrews, J. K. (ed.), Homage to Mises: The First Hundred Years, pp. 19–27. Hillsdale, MI: Hillsdale College.Google Scholar
Mehra, Jagdish and Helmut, Rechenberg. 1982. The Historical Development of Quantum Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijers, Anthonie. 1999. “Believing and Accepting as a Group.” In Meijers, A. (ed.), Belief, Cognition and the Will, pp. 59–71. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2003. “Groups with Minds of Their Own.” In Schmitt, F. F. (ed.), Socializing Metaphysics: The Nature of Social Reality, pp. 167–93. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre, Wilson. 1986. Relevance, Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1998a. “Ulcers and Bacteria I: Discovery and Acceptance.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 29(1): 107–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1998b. “Ulcers and Bacteria II: Instruments, Experiments, and Social Interactions.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 29(2): 317–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Mises, Margít. 1976. My Years with Ludwig von Mises. New York: Arlington House Publishers.Google Scholar
Walton, Donald N. and Erik, C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2001. “Collective Belief and Acceptance.” Synthese 129(3): 319–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar