Cited by 146Educational Strategies and EpistemologiesEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsScience Education and Pedagogy

Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others

Bromme, Rainer, Kienhues, Dorothe, Porsch, Torsten·2010·Personal Epistemology in the Classroom

Abstract

Introduction In this chapter we will discuss some implications of the distributed nature of knowledge for the study and for the teaching of epistemological beliefs. We will elaborate on the following argument: due to the division of labor in modern societies, knowledge is distributed and used unevenly. Most knowledge claims are based on specialized knowledge provided by specialized experts, and the knowledge is organized into disciplines, reflecting such specialization. In the following chapter, the uneven distribution and use of knowledge is called “division of cognitive labor.” Because much of our knowledge is acquired from others, most everyday epistemological issues regard the assessment of knowledge claims made by others who are experts for issues we are not experts for. Improving epistemological judgments, therefore, requires the improvement of a person's capacity to understand how specialized knowledge is distributed (who knows what) and to evaluate expert sources (whom to believe). In the first part of this chapter the notion of the “division of cognitive labor” is explained. Secondly, how the uneven distribution of cognitive labor and the dependency from experts has been conceived in research on epistemological beliefs will be discussed. The well-known dimensions “source” and “justification of knowledge” will take the section's center stage. The dimension “source” describes knowledge which is not constructed by the knower and implies a rather negative view on experts’ knowledge. The dimension “justification of knowledge” refers to beliefs necessary for the assessment of experts’ knowledge claims, but the “sophisticated” subject is mostly conceived of as overcoming the division of cognitive labor.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511691904.006

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nonexperts are most likely not able to directly evaluate the knowledge claims that are put forward in scientific publications.

    “This is because nonexperts are most likely not able to directly evaluate the knowledge claims that are put forward in scientific publications (see also Bromme et al., 2010 and the notion of firsthand and secondhand evaluations).”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T.
Affiliations
University of Münster (DE)
Venue
Personal Epistemology in the Classroom
Published
2010-01-28
Pages
163-194
OpenAlex
W369650640
Cited by
146
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
22.41
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
epistemological beliefs, distributed knowledge, division of cognitive labor, epistemic trust, expert knowledge, epistemic sources, justification of knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review