Virtual diversity: Resolving the tension between the wider culture and the institution of science.

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Harry Collins, Robert Evans, Luis Reyes-Galindo
{"title":"Virtual diversity: Resolving the tension between the wider culture and the institution of science.","authors":"Harry Collins, Robert Evans, Luis Reyes-Galindo","doi":"10.1177/03063127241263609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are widespread calls for increased demographic diversity in science, often linked to the epistemic claim that including more perspectives will improve the quality of the knowledge produced. By distinguishing between demographic and epistemic diversity, we show that this is only true some of the time. There are cases where increasing demographic diversity will not bring about the necessary epistemic diversity and cases where failing to <i>exclude</i> some voices reduces the quality of the scientific debate. We seek to resolve these tensions with an analysis that turns on the way the experience-based expertise of non-scientists can be absorbed into mainstream science. Mostly it has to be done via what we call 'virtual diversity', in which scientists take responsibility for acquiring interactional expertise in the non-scientific expertise-based domains which they consider provide knowledge valuable to the science. We argue that virtual diversity represents the only feasible option in most scenarios, with cases where demographic diversity or full cultural mergers provide the solution being the exception rather than the rule. This analysis is an exercise in the sociology of knowledge, which is considered as being continuous with philosophy. The paper is prescriptive as well as descriptive, and the moral, cultural, political, and educational implications of the argument are drawn out. A main conclusion is that the acquisition of virtual diversity should be a new norm for science, allowing the voices of experienced non-scientist citizens to be heard but without eroding the institution of science, which continues to be a vital foundation of truth in democracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":" ","pages":"3063127241263609"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241263609","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are widespread calls for increased demographic diversity in science, often linked to the epistemic claim that including more perspectives will improve the quality of the knowledge produced. By distinguishing between demographic and epistemic diversity, we show that this is only true some of the time. There are cases where increasing demographic diversity will not bring about the necessary epistemic diversity and cases where failing to exclude some voices reduces the quality of the scientific debate. We seek to resolve these tensions with an analysis that turns on the way the experience-based expertise of non-scientists can be absorbed into mainstream science. Mostly it has to be done via what we call 'virtual diversity', in which scientists take responsibility for acquiring interactional expertise in the non-scientific expertise-based domains which they consider provide knowledge valuable to the science. We argue that virtual diversity represents the only feasible option in most scenarios, with cases where demographic diversity or full cultural mergers provide the solution being the exception rather than the rule. This analysis is an exercise in the sociology of knowledge, which is considered as being continuous with philosophy. The paper is prescriptive as well as descriptive, and the moral, cultural, political, and educational implications of the argument are drawn out. A main conclusion is that the acquisition of virtual diversity should be a new norm for science, allowing the voices of experienced non-scientist citizens to be heard but without eroding the institution of science, which continues to be a vital foundation of truth in democracy.

虚拟多样性:解决更广泛的文化与科学机构之间的矛盾。
人们普遍呼吁增加科学领域的人口多样性,这往往与认识论的主张有关,即纳入更多观点将提高所产生知识的质量。通过区分人口多样性和认识论多样性,我们表明这只是在某些时候是正确的。在有些情况下,增加人口多样性并不会带来必要的认识论多样性,而在有些情况下,不排除某些声音会降低科学辩论的质量。我们试图通过一种分析方法来解决这些矛盾,即如何将非科学家以经验为基础的专业知识纳入主流科学。在大多数情况下,这必须通过我们所说的 "虚拟多样性 "来实现,即科学家负责在他们认为对科学有价值的非科学专业知识领域获取互动专业知识。我们认为,在大多数情况下,虚拟多样性是唯一可行的选择,而人口多样性或全面文化合并提供的解决方案只是例外,而不是常规。这一分析是知识社会学的一项实践,而知识社会学与哲学是相通的。本文既是描述性的,也是规定性的,并引出了论证在道德、文化、政治和教育方面的影响。一个主要结论是,虚拟多样性的获得应成为科学的新规范,允许有经验的非科学家公民发表意见,但不会削弱科学制度,因为科学制度仍然是民主中真理的重要基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信