Changes

|Prehistory=Prior to the 20th century, epistemology of science has dealt primarily with 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 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 illustration 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)|p. 18]] Paul Feyerabend also focused on Galileo in his 1993 book, ''A method''''. In his writings, Feyerabend believed there was no method of science, and thus used the study of Galileo in order to make his case. Galileo did not follow the supposed method of the time, but nonetheless was a successful individual.. According to Feyerebend, Galileo replaces the natural interpretations which are inconsistent with the Copernican theories, but does not get rid of all the natural interpretations. Instead Galileo wanted to keep only what was relevant. Feyerabend 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 accepted view was that things are true by nature, and thus his explanation contradicted these views. [[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1993)|pp. 77-147]] In his book, Barseghyan contradicts Feyerabend's belief that there is no such a thing as a method. Barseghyan explains that at the individual level, there is no method being employed, but instead the method is employed by the community. And thus, explains Barseghyan, that is the reason methods are not observed when studying specific individuals. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 47]]

Lastly, Alexander Bird argues in his 2010 paper that cognitive labor is a representation of the individual level. In his paper, Bird mentions how the scientific knowledge that a community has comes from the individual scientists, and therefore emphasizes the collectiveness of knowledge. He argues that knowledge comes from the individual’s perspectives and reasoning, and it results in what we call a community. [[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)|p. 18]]  Lastly, the focus on the individual level is to give an answer to the following questions: What do we mean by individual level and what role do individuals play in scientific change? And how do we understand the role of the individual in relation with the social level?