Changes

|Prehistory=It can be argued that authority delegation with regard to knowledge has been an essential feature of human society since time immemorial. Treating Homo sapiens as an epistemic community, [[Bernard Williams ]] postulates that in early human societies, the division of epistemic labour was essential to survival: some knew best how to find berries; others were expert at tracking the movements of dangerous predators.[[CiteRef::Williams (2002)|pp. 41-62]] [[Aristotle ]] recognized that if you wish to learn about the nature of bees, you’ll do better to ask an apiarist than to talk with your barber.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 144)]]

In recent decades, social epistemologists and sociologists of scientific knowledge have observed that most of what we know derives from the testimony of trusted others.[[CiteRef::Bird (2000)|pp. 272-273]][[CiteRef::Coady (1994)]][[CiteRef::Lipton (1998)|p. 1]] [[Ludwik Fleck ]] was one of the first to apply such ideas specifically in a scientific context. In his concepts of Denkkollectiv and Denkstil, he emphasized the fact that most individual knowledge derives from, and is embedded in, social sources.[[CiteRef::Bird (2000)|pp. 15-17]] Similarly, [[Thomas Kuhn ]] also recognized the central importance of testimony in the education and training of scientists – of their induction into a disciplinary matrix. His central notions of paradigm and disciplinary matrix depend heavily on sources of authoritative testimony such as textbooks, journals, oral presentations at conferences, and informal information sharing networks.Similarly, [[Philip Kitcher]] used the concept of ''deference to authority''.[[CiteRef::Kitcher (1993)|p. 58]]

Such notions have been applied in a variety of contexts. [[Steven Shapin]], for example, argued that only gentlemen were accorded epistemic authority within the Royal Society of 18th century England.[[CiteRef::Shapin (1998)]] From a highly individual pursuit in the 18th century, many areas of science evolved by the 20th century into massive and complex projects conducted by large groups – so-called “big science.” In this context, [[John Hardwig ]] proposed that science is fundamentally a group effort. Citing a single scientific paper on the lifespan of subatomic particles, with 99 authors (in the Physics Review Letters in 1983), Hardwig argued that within such a group, trust in authoritative testimony is essential to the creation of scientific knowledge.[[CiteRef::Hardwig (1985)]] In contrast, [[Theodore Porter ]] analyzed peer evaluation of work emanating from the one-of-a-kind neutrino observatory in Sudbury, concluding that assessment of character and integrity were essential to authority delegation in this instance.[[CiteRef::Porter (1995)]] Unbeknownst to Porter, this work would later be so highly valued as to gain a share of the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics.|Page Status=Needs Editing