Hostname: page-component-797576ffbb-cx6qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-12-01T09:29:42.483Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Group Knowledge Versus Group Rationality: Two Approaches to Social Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Extract

Social epistemology is a many-splendored subject. Different theorists adopt different approaches and the options are quite diverse, often orthogonal to one another. The approach I favor is to examine social practices in terms of their impact on knowledge acquisition (Goldman 1999). This has at least two virtues: it displays continuity with traditional epistemology, which historically focuses on knowledge, and it intersects with the concerns of practical life, which are pervasively affected by what people know or don't know. In making this choice, I am not blind to the allure of alternative approaches. In this paper I explain and motivate the knowledge-centered approach by contrasting it with a newly emerging alternative that has a definite appeal of its own. According to this alternative, the chief dimension of social epistemological interest would be rationality rather than knowledge.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow, Kenneth (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bratman, Michael (1999). Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, G. (2001). Collective coherence? International Review of Law and Economics 21: 197211.Google Scholar
Chapman, B. (1998). More easily done than said: Rules, reason and rational social choice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18: 293329.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Margaret (1989). On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (1986). Epistemology and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (1992). Liaisons: Philosophy Meets the Cognitive and Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (2002a). What is social epistemology? A smorgasbord of projects. In Goldman (2002b).Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (2002b). Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (2004). The need for social epistemology. In Leiter, B., ed., The Future of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press (pp. 182207).Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L.A. and Sager, L.G. (1986). Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal 82.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L.A. and Sager, L.G. (1993). The one and the many: Adjudication in collegial courts. Califronia Law Review 81: 159.Google Scholar
List, Christian and Pettit, Philip (2002). Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89110.Google Scholar
List, Christian and Pettit, Philip (forthcoming). Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared. Synthese.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson (1993). Epistemological communities. In Alcoff, L. and Potter, E., eds., Feminist Epistemologies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip (1993). The Common Mind: An Essay on Psychology, Society and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip (forthcoming). Groups with minds of their own. In Schmitt, F., ed., Socializing Metaphysics. Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Quinton, Anthony (1975). Social objects. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 75.Google Scholar
Searle, John (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Seeley, Thomas (1989). The honey bee colony as a superorganism. American Scientist 77: 546553.Google Scholar
Seeley, Thomas (1995). The Wisdom of the Hive: The Social Physiology of Honey Bee Colonies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya (1970). Collective Choice and Social Welfare. London: Holden Day.Google Scholar
Shapley, Lloyd and Grofman, Bernard (1984). Optimizing group judgmental accuracy in the presence of interdependence. Public Choice 43: 329343.Google Scholar
Tuomela, Raimo (1995). The Importance of Us. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar