How should we promote transient diversity in science?
Diversity of practice is widely recognized as crucial to scientific progress. If all scientists perform the same tests in their research, they might miss important insights that other tests would yield. If all scientists adhere to the same theories, they might fail to explore other options which, in...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Synthese (Dordrecht) 2023-01, Vol.201 (2), p.37, Article 37 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 37 |
| container_title | Synthese (Dordrecht) |
| container_volume | 201 |
| creator | Wu, Jingyi O’Connor, Cailin |
| description | Diversity of practice is widely recognized as crucial to scientific progress. If all scientists perform the same tests in their research, they might miss important insights that other tests would yield. If all scientists adhere to the same theories, they might fail to explore other options which, in turn, might be superior. But the mechanisms that lead to this sort of diversity can also generate epistemic harms when scientific communities fail to reach swift consensus on successful theories. In this paper, we draw on extant literature using network models to investigate diversity in science. We evaluate different mechanisms from the modeling literature that can promote transient diversity of practice, keeping in mind ethical and practical constraints posed by real epistemic communities. We ask: what are the best ways to promote an appropriate amount of diversity of practice in scientific communities? |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2767357386</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2767357386</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-68685c41e89f00cc127dedea0ff26d7e7a4a2de2a1fdd4a770d8d9c5ad939f3f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_wFPA8-pMspvsnkSKtkLBi55DSCa6pd2tydbSf290BT15mg_edz4exi4RrhFA3yREIZoChCygBKkLPGITrHQuG1Ue_8lP2VlKKwBEVcKEVYt-z9Nbv1t7vie-jf2mH4gP0XappW7gvv2gmNrhwNuOJ5d7jm7P2Umw60QXP3HKXh7un2eLYvk0f5zdLQsnlRwKVau6ciVS3QQA51BoT54shCCU16RtaYUnYTF4X1qtwde-cZX1jWyCDHLKrsa5-a73HaXBrPpd7PJKI7TSMj9Vq6wSo8rFPqVIwWxju7HxYBDMFx4z4jEZj_nGYzCb5GhKWdy9Uvwd_Y_rEzN1aBk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2767357386</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How should we promote transient diversity in science?</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Wu, Jingyi ; O’Connor, Cailin</creator><creatorcontrib>Wu, Jingyi ; O’Connor, Cailin</creatorcontrib><description>Diversity of practice is widely recognized as crucial to scientific progress. If all scientists perform the same tests in their research, they might miss important insights that other tests would yield. If all scientists adhere to the same theories, they might fail to explore other options which, in turn, might be superior. But the mechanisms that lead to this sort of diversity can also generate epistemic harms when scientific communities fail to reach swift consensus on successful theories. In this paper, we draw on extant literature using network models to investigate diversity in science. We evaluate different mechanisms from the modeling literature that can promote transient diversity of practice, keeping in mind ethical and practical constraints posed by real epistemic communities. We ask: what are the best ways to promote an appropriate amount of diversity of practice in scientific communities?</description><identifier>ISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0039-7857</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Community ; Decision theory ; Education ; Epistemology ; Ethics ; Literature ; Logic ; Metaphysics ; Original Research ; Philosophy ; Philosophy of Language ; Philosophy of Science ; Scientists ; Social and Cognitive Diversity in Science</subject><ispartof>Synthese (Dordrecht), 2023-01, Vol.201 (2), p.37, Article 37</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2023</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2023. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-68685c41e89f00cc127dedea0ff26d7e7a4a2de2a1fdd4a770d8d9c5ad939f3f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-68685c41e89f00cc127dedea0ff26d7e7a4a2de2a1fdd4a770d8d9c5ad939f3f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7198-851X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wu, Jingyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Connor, Cailin</creatorcontrib><title>How should we promote transient diversity in science?</title><title>Synthese (Dordrecht)</title><addtitle>Synthese</addtitle><description>Diversity of practice is widely recognized as crucial to scientific progress. If all scientists perform the same tests in their research, they might miss important insights that other tests would yield. If all scientists adhere to the same theories, they might fail to explore other options which, in turn, might be superior. But the mechanisms that lead to this sort of diversity can also generate epistemic harms when scientific communities fail to reach swift consensus on successful theories. In this paper, we draw on extant literature using network models to investigate diversity in science. We evaluate different mechanisms from the modeling literature that can promote transient diversity of practice, keeping in mind ethical and practical constraints posed by real epistemic communities. We ask: what are the best ways to promote an appropriate amount of diversity of practice in scientific communities?</description><subject>Community</subject><subject>Decision theory</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Literature</subject><subject>Logic</subject><subject>Metaphysics</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Philosophy of Language</subject><subject>Philosophy of Science</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Social and Cognitive Diversity in Science</subject><issn>1573-0964</issn><issn>0039-7857</issn><issn>1573-0964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMoWKt_wFPA8-pMspvsnkSKtkLBi55DSCa6pd2tydbSf290BT15mg_edz4exi4RrhFA3yREIZoChCygBKkLPGITrHQuG1Ue_8lP2VlKKwBEVcKEVYt-z9Nbv1t7vie-jf2mH4gP0XappW7gvv2gmNrhwNuOJ5d7jm7P2Umw60QXP3HKXh7un2eLYvk0f5zdLQsnlRwKVau6ciVS3QQA51BoT54shCCU16RtaYUnYTF4X1qtwde-cZX1jWyCDHLKrsa5-a73HaXBrPpd7PJKI7TSMj9Vq6wSo8rFPqVIwWxju7HxYBDMFx4z4jEZj_nGYzCb5GhKWdy9Uvwd_Y_rEzN1aBk</recordid><startdate>20230120</startdate><enddate>20230120</enddate><creator>Wu, Jingyi</creator><creator>O’Connor, Cailin</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GB0</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7198-851X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230120</creationdate><title>How should we promote transient diversity in science?</title><author>Wu, Jingyi ; O’Connor, Cailin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c363t-68685c41e89f00cc127dedea0ff26d7e7a4a2de2a1fdd4a770d8d9c5ad939f3f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Community</topic><topic>Decision theory</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Literature</topic><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Metaphysics</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Philosophy of Language</topic><topic>Philosophy of Science</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Social and Cognitive Diversity in Science</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wu, Jingyi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O’Connor, Cailin</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>DELNET Social Sciences & Humanities Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wu, Jingyi</au><au>O’Connor, Cailin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How should we promote transient diversity in science?</atitle><jtitle>Synthese (Dordrecht)</jtitle><stitle>Synthese</stitle><date>2023-01-20</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>201</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>37</spage><pages>37-</pages><artnum>37</artnum><issn>1573-0964</issn><issn>0039-7857</issn><eissn>1573-0964</eissn><abstract>Diversity of practice is widely recognized as crucial to scientific progress. If all scientists perform the same tests in their research, they might miss important insights that other tests would yield. If all scientists adhere to the same theories, they might fail to explore other options which, in turn, might be superior. But the mechanisms that lead to this sort of diversity can also generate epistemic harms when scientific communities fail to reach swift consensus on successful theories. In this paper, we draw on extant literature using network models to investigate diversity in science. We evaluate different mechanisms from the modeling literature that can promote transient diversity of practice, keeping in mind ethical and practical constraints posed by real epistemic communities. We ask: what are the best ways to promote an appropriate amount of diversity of practice in scientific communities?</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7198-851X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1573-0964 |
| ispartof | Synthese (Dordrecht), 2023-01, Vol.201 (2), p.37, Article 37 |
| issn | 1573-0964 0039-7857 1573-0964 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2767357386 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Community Decision theory Education Epistemology Ethics Literature Logic Metaphysics Original Research Philosophy Philosophy of Language Philosophy of Science Scientists Social and Cognitive Diversity in Science |
| title | How should we promote transient diversity in science? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T12%3A42%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20should%20we%20promote%20transient%20diversity%20in%20science?&rft.jtitle=Synthese%20(Dordrecht)&rft.au=Wu,%20Jingyi&rft.date=2023-01-20&rft.volume=201&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=37&rft.pages=37-&rft.artnum=37&rft.issn=1573-0964&rft.eissn=1573-0964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2767357386%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2767357386&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |