比最好更好:科学实践的认知景观和多样性

IF 1.4 2区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2023-10-04 DOI:10.1017/psa.2023.129

Jingyi Wu

{"title":"比最好更好:科学实践的认知景观和多样性","authors":"Jingyi Wu","doi":"10.1017/psa.2023.129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract When solving a complex problem in a group, should group members always choose the best available solution that they are aware of? In this paper, I build simulation models to show that, perhaps surprisingly, a group of agents who individually randomly follow a better available solution than their own can end up outperforming a group of agents who individually always follow the best available solution. This result has implications for the feminist philosophy of science and social epistemology.","PeriodicalId":54620,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Better than Best: Epistemic Landscapes and Diversity of Practice in Science\",\"authors\":\"Jingyi Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/psa.2023.129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract When solving a complex problem in a group, should group members always choose the best available solution that they are aware of? In this paper, I build simulation models to show that, perhaps surprisingly, a group of agents who individually randomly follow a better available solution than their own can end up outperforming a group of agents who individually always follow the best available solution. This result has implications for the feminist philosophy of science and social epistemology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54620,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.129\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.129","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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

摘要

在群体中解决复杂问题时，群体成员是否总是选择他们所知道的最佳解决方案?在本文中，我建立了仿真模型来表明，也许令人惊讶的是，一组个体随机遵循比他们自己更好的可用解决方案的代理最终会优于一组个体总是遵循最佳可用解决方案的代理。这一结果对女性主义科学哲学和社会认识论具有启示意义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Better than Best: Epistemic Landscapes and Diversity of Practice in Science

Abstract When solving a complex problem in a group, should group members always choose the best available solution that they are aware of? In this paper, I build simulation models to show that, perhaps surprisingly, a group of agents who individually randomly follow a better available solution than their own can end up outperforming a group of agents who individually always follow the best available solution. This result has implications for the feminist philosophy of science and social epistemology.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

5.90%

发文量

128

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Since its inception in 1934, Philosophy of Science, along with its sponsoring society, the Philosophy of Science Association, has been dedicated to the furthering of studies and free discussion from diverse standpoints in the philosophy of science. The journal contains essays, discussion articles, and book reviews.