Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{Topic|Question=Who can be a ''bearer'' of a ''mosaic''? Can a ''community'' be a bearer of a mosaic? Can an ''individual'' be a bearer of a mosaic? Can an ''instrument' be a bearer of a mosaic?|Topic Type=Descriptive|Description=An agent is defined as an entity with a capacity to act. [[CiteRef::Schlosser (2015)]] The question here is who or what can be an epistemic agent, that is, who or what can take [[Epistemic Stances|stances]] towards [[Epistemic Elements|epistemic elements]] or be the bearer of a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]? For example, consider a [[Epistemic Community|community]] that [[Authority Delegation|delegates authority]] over a certain topic to its sub-community. Then this sub-community delegates authority over a sub-topic of this topic to its sub-sub-community. Finally, this sub-sub-community delegates one very specific question to a single expert. Does this mean that an individual scientist can also be a bearer of a mosaic? Another question is whether an artificial system, such as a database or an instrument, can function as an epistemic agent, and if so, what properties it would need to possess in order to do so.|Parent Topic=Ontology of Scientific Change|Authors List=Kevin Zheng, Hakob Barseghyan,|Formulated Year=2016|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016,|Prehistory=For most of the history of western science and philosophy, human individuals were treated as the primary epistemic agents. Exceptions include discussions of when one should accept the testimony of others in the works of [[David Hume]] (1711-1776)and [[Thomas Reid]](1710-1796). [[CiteRef::Goldman (2015)]] In the nineteenth century, [[John S. Mill|John Stuart Mill]] (1806-1873), in a political essay called ''On Liberty'' [[CiteRef:: Mill (1859)]] argued that, because individual human knowers are fallible, the critical discussion of ideas is necessary to help individuals avoid the falsity or partiality of beliefs framed in the context of only one point of view. The achievement of knowledge is thus a social rather than an individual matter. #REDIRECT [[CiteRef::Longino (2016)]] Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) emphasized the instigation Subtypes of doubt and critical interaction within a community as means to knowledge. He formulated a consensual theory of truth, in which the acceptance of the truth of a proposition depends on the agreement of a community of inquirers. For Peirce then, communities are epistemic agents that can take stances towards propositions. [[CiteRef::Peirce (1878)]][[CiteRef::Longino (2016)]]|Related Topics=Scientific Community, Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change, Scientific Mosaic, Epistemic Stances Towards Theories,|Page Status=Needs Editing}}{{Acceptance Record|Community=Community:Scientonomy|Accepted From Era=CE|Accepted From Year=2016|Accepted From Month=March|Accepted From Day=1|Accepted From Approximate=Yes|Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016Agent]].|Still Accepted=Yes|Accepted Until Approximate=No}}
Redirected page to Subtypes of Epistemic Agent
