Changes

|Prehistory=Earlier in historyPrior to the 20th century, epistemology of science has dealt primarily with the individual level, there was an implicit focus on the individual how individuals produce knowledge.[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)|p. 4]]Interest in levels of social knowledge has been increasing after the 20th century, and the issue of the individual level is became an important issue. Many figures philosophers of science have come up with different beliefs regarding the individual level and the way this level affects the scientific mosaic. Locke and Hume stated that in order for an individual to have certain beliefs, he has to find them in his own experiments.[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)|p. 4]] The famous Virginia Polytechnic Institute project (VPI) was an attempt to use empirical evidences to elucidate problems in the philosophy of science, and throughout the process they focused largely on individuals. An example of this is, Finocchiaro revealing certain letters of Galileo’s and extracting information about Galileo’s beliefs towards Copernicanism, in order to figure out how Galileo dealt with the problem of appraisal. From his research written in his book, we are told that Galileo initially only partly pursued the Copernicus theory. Prior to his discovery of the telescope, and even after this, Galileo has been in contact with many important figures of the time, such as Kepler. Once the telescope was discovered, Galileo accepted the Copernican theory. Part of this was because the Copernican theory proved his assumptions to be empirically true and his theories could be used to solve problems. And thus, Finocchiaro focused on Galileo's belifs and what led him to change his beliefs in order to fit with the Copernican theory.[CiteRef::Donovan, Laudan, and Laudan (Eds.) (1988)lp. 18]] Paul Feyerbend also focused on Galileo in his 1993 book, ''A method''''. In his writings, Feyerbend believed there was no method of science, and thus used the study of Galileo in order to make his case. He used Galileo, because he did not follow the supposed method of the time, but none the less was a successful individual.. According to him, Galileo never wanted to get rid of all the natural interpretations, but instead he wanted to keep only what was relevant. Feyerband tells us that Galileo believes there should be an ‘argument from observation’ because one should be able to explain and justify what has occurred in his results, and not only give ad hoc explanations. During the time Galileo proposed these arguments, the main method was the Aristotelian method, and therefore these arguments were contradicting the current accepted views. According to Feyerband, this gave Galileo trouble with the church. The key feature here is that despite church’s efforts to prevent these arguments from happening, Galileo succeeded at implying them in the mosaic, and thus proves once more that we can govern changes at the individual level. [[CiteRef::Feyerband (1993)lpp. 77-147]]