References

Audi, R. (1983). Foundationalism, epistemic dependence, and defeasability. Synthese, 55(1), 119-139.

Bechtel, W., & Abrahamsen, A. (2012). Diagramming phenomena for mechanistic explanation. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 102-107).

Carusi, A. (2012). Making the visual visible in philosophy of science. Spontaneous Generations, 6(1), 106-114.

Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

de Ridder, J. (2014). Epistemic dependence and collective scientific knowledge. Synthese, 191(1), 37-53.

Fricker, E. (2006). Second-hand knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenlogical Research, 73(3), 592-618.

Goddiksen, M. (2014). Clarifying interactional and contributory expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 47, 111-117.

Goldberg, S. C. (2011). The division of epistemic labor. Episteme, 8(1), 112-125.

Goldman, A. I. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenlogical Research, 63(1), 85-110.

Gorman, M. (2002). Levels of expertise and trading zones: A framework for multidisciplinary collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 32(5-6), 933-938.

Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(7), 335349.

Hardwig, J. (1988). Evidence, testimony, and the problem of individualism - a response to Schmitt. Social Epistemology, 2(4), 309-321.

Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal ofPhilosophy, 88(12), 693-708.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hutchins, E. (2001). Distributed cognition. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 2068-2072). Oxford: Elsevier.

Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42(2), 262-271.

Latour, B. (1999). Circulating reference: Sampling soil in the Amazon forest. In Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science study (pp. 24-79). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Laudel, G. (2001). Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7), 762—781.

Lenhard, J. (2006). Surprised by nanowire: Simulation, control, and understanding. Philosophy of Science, 73(5), 605—616.

Leonelli, S. (2010). Packaging data for re-use: Databases in model organism biology. In P. Howlett & M. S. Morgan (Eds.), How well do facts travel? The dissemination of reliable knowledge (pp. 325—348). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nersessian, N. J., Kurz-Milcke, E., Newstetter, W. C., & Davies, J. (2003). Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. In R. Alter- mann & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857—862). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Rysiew, P. (2016). Epistemic contextualism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2016 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr2016/entries/contextualism-epistemology/.

Soler, L. (2011). Tacit aspects of experimental practices: analytical tools and epistemological consequences. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, /(1), 393-433.

Sperber, D., Clement, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., et al. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25(4), 359-393.

Whitley, R. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon.

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >