The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Fate of Knowledge
Abstract
Preface and Acknowledgments ix Chapter One: Introduction: The Rational-Social Dichotomy 1 Chapter Two: Taking Social Studies of Science Seriously 11 Chapter Three: The Philosophers Respond 42 Chapter Four: Disassembling the Rational-Social Dichotomy 77 Chapter Five: Socializing Cognition 97 Chapter Six: Socializing Knowledge 124 Chapter Seven: Clarifications and Responses 145 Chapter Eight: Pluralism and Local Epistemolgies 175 Chapter Nine: Conclusion 203 References 215 Index 227
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Many philosophers of science hold that these value judgments are required to set evidential thresholds and if the agent is transparent about their judgment, consistently applies their threshold as new data emerges, and stays open to revising their stance, the resulting value-laden belief is unproblematic (e.g., Longino, 2002;Elliot & Richards, 2017).”
From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Longino, 2002
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001
Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent?
Peters, U. (2026) · Minds and Machines · doi:10.1007/s11023-026-09795-8
Metadata
- Authors
- Longino, H. E.
- Corresponding author
- Longino, Helen E.
- ORCID
- Longino, Helen E.
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 2002-12-31
- OpenAlex
- W1559582138
- Cited by
- 1,622
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 141 · 2025: 133 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 66 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 66 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 68 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 59
- FWCI
- 70.28
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education, Politics, and Culture Studies
- Keywords
- social studies of science, knowledge socialization, philosophy of science, epistemology, local epistemologies, pluralism, sociology 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
