The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
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
“Likewise, authoritative knowledge emerges through organized critical scrutiny and communal validation rather than expertise alone [22].”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Knowledge acquires legitimacy by passing through institutional processes of review, debate, and revision.”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Longino's [22] social epistemology argues that epistemic authority emerges through organized criticism, peer evaluation, and communal scrutiny rather than through expertise alone.”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Across the generative pipeline, successive transformations from cultural corpora to datasets, from datasets to base models, and from base models to instruction-tuned systems enact epistemic and normative boundaries that delimit what forms of meaning become legible, what interpretive options are foregrounded, and which traditions of validation remain visible or are displaced [11,17,22].”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Expertise is therefore a necessary but insufficient condition for authority.”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“This separation reflects Longino's [22] model of epistemic communities, in which reliability emerges through structured critical interaction.”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Longino's [22] model of epistemic communities and Serres's [35] notion of quasi-objects are relevant here: interpretive artefacts circulate within collectives, generating authority through structured participation rather than individual assertion.”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Rather than locating legitimacy in model behavior or output quality, the framework situates it in publicly inspectable practices of disclosure, review, and validation that organize how interpretive claims are produced, circulated, and authorized [11,22].”
From Who speaks when machines read scripture: boundary-making and interpretive authority in AI-mediated religious knowledge (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Because scientific theories, hypotheses, and models are based on human perceptual categories, concepts, and assumptions, bias-free research is not possible [121, 125, 137].”
From The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool (2025) · cites this paper as [137]
In the citing paper
“Third, during the data-interpretation stage researchers make variousassumptions based on interpretive frameworks, analytical tools, concepts, and background theories (Elliott et al 2016, Longino 1990).”
From Data-Intensive Science and Research Integrity (2017) · cites this paper as Longino 1990
In the citing paper
“However, if an individual possesses too little background knowledge, he or she will not even be able to understand that the anomalous data are anomalous (cf.Lijnse, 1990;Longino, 1990).”
From The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. (1993) · cites this paper as Longino, 1990
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,002
Methodology discourses as boundary work in the construction of engineering education
Beddoes, K. (2013) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312713510431 · Cited by 61
Constructing a Broader and More Inclusive Value System in Science
Uriarte, M., Ewing, H. A., Eviner, V. T., & Weathers, K. C. (2007) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/b570111 · Cited by 61
Yergeau, M., & Huebner, B. (2017) · Journal of Social Philosophy · doi:10.1111/josp.12191 · Cited by 61
What kind of trust does AI deserve, if any?
Alvarado, R. (2023) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-022-00224-x · Cited by 60
Is Longino's Conception of Objectivity Feminist?
Hicks, D. (2010) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01160.x · Cited by 59
Орескес, Н. (2013) · Science in Context · doi:10.1017/s026988971300029x · Cited by 61
Gerken, M. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198857273.001.0001 · Cited by 60
Should the sociology of science be rated X?
Allchin, D. (2004) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20026 · Cited by 59
Social-ecological science in the humane metropolis
Pickett, S. T. A., Buckley, G. L., Kaushal, S. S., & Williams, Y. (2011) · Urban Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s11252-011-0166-7 · Cited by 59
Modern Science: Institutionalization of Knowledge and Rationalization of Power
Brown, R. H. (1993) · Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1993.tb00135.x · Cited by 59
Statistics, ethics, and research: An agenda for education and reform
Resnik, D. B. (2000) · Accountability in Research · doi:10.1080/08989620008573971 · Cited by 58
Do Collaborators in Science Need to Agree?
Dang, H. (2019) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/705444 · Cited by 58
Tsou, J. Y. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108588485 · Cited by 62
Mitchell, P. W. (2018) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2007008 · Cited by 58
Open Science Promotes Diverse, Just, and Sustainable Research and Educational Outcomes
Grahe, J. E., Cuccolo, K., Leighton, D. C., & Alvarez, L. D. C. (2019) · Psychology Learning & Teaching · doi:10.1177/1475725719869164 · Cited by 63
Thompson, C. J., Stern, B. B., & Arnould, E. J. (1998) · Consumption Markets & Culture · doi:10.1080/10253866.1998.9670314 · Cited by 58
The Discipline as Disciplinary Normalization: Networks of Research
Luke, T. W. (1999) · New Political Science · doi:10.1080/07393149908429876 · Cited by 58
Turkish Pre‐Service Science Teachers’ Views on Science–Technology–Society Issues
Yalvaç, B., Tekkaya, C., Çakıroğlu, J., & Kahyaoglu, E. (2006) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690600708667 · Cited by 57
Watkins, J., & Manz, E. (2022) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21747 · Cited by 56
Feministische Wissenschaftskritik und Epistemologie: Voraussetzungen, Positionen, Perspektiven
Singer, M. (2008) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-91972-0_33 · Cited by 58
A new path for humanistic medicine
Ferry-Danini, J. (2018) · Metamedicine · doi:10.1007/s11017-018-9433-4 · Cited by 56
The fact of uncertainty, the uncertainty of facts and the cultural resonance of doubt
Орескес, Н. (2015) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0455 · Cited by 61
Douglas, H. (2013) · Erkenntnis · doi:10.1007/s10670-013-9538-0 · Cited by 55
Values in Science: The Case of Scientific Collaboration
Rolin, K. H. (2015) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/680522 · Cited by 55
The Theory of Constructed Emotion: More Than a Feeling
Barrett, L. F., Atzil, S., Bliss‐Moreau, E., Chanes, L., Gendron, M., Hoemann, K., Katsumi, Y., Kleckner, I. R., Lindquist, K. A., Quigley, K. S., et al. (2025) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916251319045 · Cited by 69
Bias in science: natural and social
May, J. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02937-0 · Cited by 60
Conflicts of Interest in Science
Resnik, D. B. (1998) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00557 · Cited by 54
Feminism, Underdetermination, and Values in Science
Intemann, K. K. (2005) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/508956 · Cited by 54
Beyond regulatory capture: Coproducing expertise for critical infrastructure protection
Slayton, R. M., & Clark‐Ginsberg, A. (2017) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/rego.12168 · Cited by 54
Bianchini, J. A., & Solomon, E. M. (2002) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.10060 · Cited by 54
We Have No Satisfactory Social Epistemology of AI-Based Science
Koskinen, I. (2023) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2023.2286253 · Cited by 53
Situating Moral Justification: Rethinking the Mission of Moral Epistemology
Jaggar, A. M., & Tobin, T. W. (2013) · Metaphilosophy · doi:10.1111/meta.12048 · Cited by 53
Preparing interdisciplinary leadership for a sustainable future
Boone, C. G., Pickett, S. T. A., Bammer, G., Bawa, K. S., Dunne, J. A., Gordon, I. J., Hart, D. D., Hellmann, J. J., Miller, A., New, M. G., et al. (2020) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00823-9 · Cited by 53
Engelstad, E. (2007) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-007-9035-3 · Cited by 56
Citizen experts in environmental risk
Tesh, S. N. (1999) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1023/a:1004398228075 · Cited by 53
Kind-Making, objectivity, and political neutrality; the case of Solastalgia
Glackin, S. N. (2011) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.012 · Cited by 52
Diversity and Dissent in Science: Does Democracy Always Serve Feminist Aims?
Intemann, K. K. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5_6 · Cited by 52
Wilson, R. E., & Kittleson, J. M. (2013) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21087 · Cited by 66
Ezzamel, M., & Willmott, H. C. (2014) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840614525324 · Cited by 52
Organising a culture of argumentation in elementary science
Sandoval, W. A., Enyedy, N., Redman, E. H., & Xiao, S. (2019) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2019.1641856 · Cited by 56
Aydeniz, M., Baksa, K., & Skinner, J. (2010) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9261-4 · Cited by 54
Autonomy and Social Relationships: Rethinking the Feminist Critique
Friedman, M. (2003) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/0195138503.003.0004 · Cited by 53
Science Is Not Always “Self-Correcting”
Cofnas, N. (2015) · Foundations of Science · doi:10.1007/s10699-015-9421-3 · Cited by 52
Bolshakova, V. L. J., Johnson, C. C., & Czerniak, C. M. (2011) · Cultural Studies of Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9346-2 · Cited by 51
How Does She Know? Feminist Theories of Gender Bias in Economics
Folbre, N. R. (1993) · History of Political Economy · doi:10.1215/00182702-25-1-167 · Cited by 52
The Epistemic Dangers of Context Collapse Online
Frost‐Arnold, K. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198833659.003.0018 · Cited by 51
Telling Stories About Engineering: Group Dynamics and Resistance to Diversity
Burack, C., & Franks, S. (2004) · NWSA Journal · doi:10.1353/nwsa.2004.0029 · Cited by 51
On Valuing Women: Advancing an Intersectional Theory of Gender Diversity in Organizations
Kaufmann, L., & Derry, R. (2023) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2021.0382 · Cited by 56
VARIATIONS IN ETHICAL INTUITIONS
Zamzow, J. L., & Nichols, S. (2009) · Philosophical Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2009.00164.x · Cited by 53
Socially Responsible Science Is More than “Good Science”
Bird, S. J. (2014) · Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education · doi:10.1128/jmbe.v15i2.870 · Cited by 50
The need for formal reflexivity in conservation science
Boyce, P., Bhattacharyya, J., & Linklater, W. L. (2021) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13840 · Cited by 50
Value Judgements and the Estimation of Uncertainty in Climate Modeling
Biddle, J. B., & Winsberg, E. B. (2010) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-230-29719-7_10 · Cited by 50
Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2023) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2 · Cited by 49
Value-entanglement and the integrity of scientific research
Resnik, D. B., & Elliott, K. C. (2019) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.12.011 · Cited by 49
Fleisher, W. (2019) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12315 · Cited by 49
Objectivity, trust and social responsibility
Rolin, K. H. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02669-1 · Cited by 49
Political Epistemology and Social Critique
Haslanger, S. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192897480.003.0002 · Cited by 57
Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09927-5 · Cited by 49
Population Genetics in Israel in the 1950s
Kirsh, N. (2003) · Isis · doi:10.1086/386385 · Cited by 49
Explanatory Pluralism and Complementarity
Marchionni, C. (2008) · Philosophy of the Social Sciences · doi:10.1177/0048393108319399 · Cited by 49
Technology, translation and society
Olohan, M. (2017) · Target International Journal of Translation Studies · doi:10.1075/target.29.2.04olo · Cited by 55
Caribou co-management in northern Canada: fostering multiple ways of knowing
Kendrick, A. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541957.015 · Cited by 49
Solomon, S. M., & Hackett, E. J. (1996) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/016224399602100201 · Cited by 49
Ernst Mach at the Crossroads of Twentieth‐Century Philosophy
Hintikka, J. (2001) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/019513916x.003.0005 · Cited by 49
Wylie, A. (1996) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00502 · Cited by 48
Recherches participatives et épistémologies radicales : un état des lieux
Godrie, B., Juan, M., & Carrel, M. (2022) · Participations · doi:10.3917/parti.032.0011 · Cited by 59
‘Let's Look at It Objectively’: Why Phenomenology Cannot be Naturalized
Moran, D. (2013) · Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement · doi:10.1017/s1358246113000064 · Cited by 48
Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2003) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10064 · Cited by 48
Likelihood and model selection
Richards, S. A. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672547.003.0004 · Cited by 50
Underdetermination in science: What it is and why we should care
Turnbull, M. G. (2017) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12475 · Cited by 47
Can patents prohibit research? On the social epistemology of patenting and licensing in science
Biddle, J. B. (2014) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.12.001 · Cited by 47
Grinath, A. S., & Southerland, S. A. (2018) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21484 · Cited by 49
Towards a Refined Depiction of Nature of Science
Galili, I. (2019) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-019-00042-4 · Cited by 47
Cudd, A. E. (2005) · Philosophy of the Social Sciences · doi:10.1177/0048393104271923 · Cited by 49
Schechtman, M. (1997) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089708573212 · Cited by 47
The objectivity of Subjective Bayesianism
Sprenger, J. (2018) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-018-0200-1 · Cited by 47
Open Questions in Scientific Consensus Messaging Research
Landrum, A. R., & Slater, M. H. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2020.1776746 · Cited by 46
Diversity in sociotechnical machine learning systems
Fazelpour, S., & De‐Arteaga, M. (2022) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517221082027 · Cited by 55
The epistemic significance of consensus
Tucker, A. (2003) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/00201740310003388 · Cited by 46
The Authority of the Fallacies Approach to Argument Evaluation
Hundleby, C. E. (2010) · Informal Logic · doi:10.22329/il.v30i3.3035 · Cited by 46
Disciplinary diversity in marine sciences: the urgent case for an integration of research
Markus, T., Hillebrand, H., Hornidge, A., Krause, G., & Schlüter, A. (2017) · ICES Journal of Marine Science · doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsx201 · Cited by 47
Humanistic interpretation and machine learning
Pääkkönen, J., & Ylikoski, P. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02806-w · Cited by 51
What warrants our claims? A methodological evaluation of argument structure
Ketokivi, M. A., & Mantere, S. (2021) · Journal of Operations Management · doi:10.1002/joom.1137 · Cited by 52
(2006) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1215/9780822388128-002 · Cited by 48
Foucault’s politicization of ontology
Oksala, J. (2010) · Continental Philosophy Review · doi:10.1007/s11007-010-9153-6 · Cited by 46
Accounting and the Moral Order: Justice, Accounting, and Legitmate Moral Authority
Williams, P. F. (2002) · Accounting and the Public Interest · doi:10.2308/api.2002.2.1.1 · Cited by 46
Socializing Naturalized Philosophy of Science
Downes, S. M. (1993) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/289746 · Cited by 46
Inquiry Teaching and Learning: Philosophical Considerations
Kelly, G. J. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_42 · Cited by 45
“BUT MOM, CROP‐TOPS ARE CUTE!” SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE, SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND IDEOLOGY CRITIQUE
Haslanger, S. (2007) · Philosophical Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1533-6077.2007.00123.x · Cited by 45
Understanding Science in Conservation: A Q Method Approach on the Galápagos Islands
Cairns, R. (2012) · Conservation and Society · doi:10.4103/0972-4923.101835 · Cited by 45
Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values
Elliott, K. C., McCright, A. M., Allen, S., & Dietz, T. M. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186049 · Cited by 52
Student views on the influence of culture on science
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/0950069970190405 · Cited by 45
New minds for a new age: Prologue to modernizing the science curriculum
Hurd, P. D. (1994) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730780107 · Cited by 45
Haila, Y. (1999) · Ecography · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.1999.tb00571.x · Cited by 45
Illegitimate Values, Confirmation Bias, and Mandevillian Cognition in Science
Peters, U. (2021) · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1093/bjps/axy079 · Cited by 45
Wilson, J. C. (2000) · Technical Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1080/10572250009364691 · Cited by 44
How to endorse conciliationism
Fleisher, W. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02695-z · Cited by 45
Multi-professional healthcare teams, medical dominance, and institutional epistemic injustice
Bueter, A., & Jukola, S. (2025) · Medicine Health Care and Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s11019-025-10252-z · Cited by 44
Group Deliberation, Social Cohesion, and Scientific Teamwork: Is There Room for Dissent?
Tollefsen, D. P. (2006) · Episteme · doi:10.1353/epi.0.0008 · Cited by 44
The Role of Argument: Learning How to Learn in School Science
Osborne, J. F. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_62 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Longino, H. E.
- Corresponding author
- Longino, Helen E.
- ORCID
- Longino, Helen E.
- Venue
- Princeton University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Princeton University Press
- Published
- 1990-12-31
- OpenAlex
- W4300559119
- Cited by
- 3,092
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 244 · 2025: 296 · 2024: 188 · 2023: 169 · 2022: 212 · 2021: 160 · 2020: 145 · 2019: 173 · 2018: 128 · 2017: 86 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 58
- FWCI
- 81.08
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Princeton University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Logic and Philosophy of Science
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Education, Politics, and Culture Studies
- Keywords
- philosophy of science, sociology of science, scientific knowledge, epistemology of science
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
