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 701–800 of 1,002
The Theory and Philosophy of History
Ohara, J. R. M. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009036313 · Cited by 22
Bergin, L. A. (2002) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/0269172022000025589 · Cited by 25
Corlett, J. A. (2007) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691720701674049 · Cited by 22
Logical Empiricism, Feminism, and Neurath's Auxiliary Motive
Okruhlik, K. (2004) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01268.x · Cited by 22
Behavioral economics, gender economics, and feminist economics: friends or foes?
Becchio, G. (2019) · Journal of Economic Methodology · doi:10.1080/1350178x.2019.1625218 · Cited by 22
Dejardin, M., Hoogendoorn, B., Janssen, F., Rietveld, C. A., & van Burg, E. (2023) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-023-00837-4 · Cited by 21
Social Constructions of Hypnosis
Kirmayer, L. J. (1992) · International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis · doi:10.1080/00207149208409662 · Cited by 21
Allchin, D. (2008) · The American Biology Teacher · doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2008)70[502:nine]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 21
Addressing Industry-Funded Research with Criteria for Objectivity
Elliott, K. C. (2018) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/699718 · Cited by 21
Could our epistemic reasons be collective practical reasons?
Dyke, M. M. (2020) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12335 · Cited by 21
Nature of Science for Social Justice: Why, What and How?
Hansson, L., & Yacoubian, H. A. (2020) · Science: Philosophy, history and education · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47260-3_1 · Cited by 21
O’Connor, C. (2020) · Australasian Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/00048402.2020.1781220 · Cited by 21
Lieber, L. S., Ibraj, K., Caspari‐Gnann, I., & Graulich, N. (2022) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00213 · Cited by 21
Alzen, J. L., Edwards, K., Penuel, W. R., Reiser, B. J., Passmore, C., Griesemer, C. D., Zivic, A., Murzynski, C., & Buell, J. Y. (2022) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21841 · Cited by 21
Pinto, M. F. (2023) · Perspectives on Science · doi:10.1162/posc_a_00589 · Cited by 21
“The roots (and routes) of the epistemology of ignorance”
Alcoff, L. M. (2024) · Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy · doi:10.1080/13698230.2024.2305011 · Cited by 21
Potochnik, A. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009049474 · Cited by 21
Traits of a good ecologist: What do ecologists think?
Reiners, W. A., Reiners, D. S., & Lockwood, J. A. (2013) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1890/es13-00025.1 · Cited by 21
WHAT DO SCIENTISTS KNOW ABOUT THE NATURE OF SCIENCE? A CASE STUDY OF NOVICE SCIENTISTS’ VIEWS OF NOS
Aydeniz, M., & Bilican, K. (2013) · International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.1007/s10763-013-9449-1 · Cited by 22
Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight
Resnik, D. B. (2008) · Episteme · doi:10.3366/e1742360008000336 · Cited by 21
Public knowledge and its discontents
Kitcher, P. (2011) · Theory and Research in Education · doi:10.1177/1477878511409618 · Cited by 21
Research synthesis methods in ecology
Gurevitch, J., & Nakagawa, S. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672547.003.0010 · Cited by 21
Bush, D., Sieber, R. E., Seiler, G., & Chandler, M. A. (2016) · Journal of Geoscience Education · doi:10.5408/15-127 · Cited by 22
Ageism in a Cross-Cultural Perspective: Reflections from the Research Field
Wilińska, M., Hontheim, A. D., & Anbäcken, E. (2018) · International perspectives on aging · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8_26 · Cited by 21
Stokes, D. (2020) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/mila.12270 · Cited by 21
Evidence based methodology: a naturalistic analysis of epistemic policies in regulatory science
Luján, J. L., & Todt, O. (2021) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-020-00340-7 · Cited by 21
Science on Television: Storytelling, Learning and Citizenship
Dhingra, K. (2006) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057260608560221 · Cited by 21
Bio-Rhetoric, Background Beliefs and the Biology of Homosexuality
Brookey, R. A. (2001) · Argumentation and Advocacy · doi:10.1080/00028533.2001.11951668 · Cited by 21
Nature of Science in General Chemistry Textbooks
Níaz, M., & Maza, A. (2011) · Springer briefs in education · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1920-0_1 · Cited by 21
The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945–2015
(2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316779651 · Cited by 21
Healy, P. (2012) · New Ideas in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.12.005 · Cited by 21
Environmental Risk, Precaution, and Scientific Rationality in the Context of WTO/NAFTA Trade Rules
Crawford‐Brown, D., Pauwelyn, J., & Smith, K. (2004) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00449.x · Cited by 21
Kitcher, P. (1995) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/0195096533.003.0002 · Cited by 21
Synergy through Disunity, Science as Social Practice: Comments on Vanpool and Vanpool
Hutson, S. R. (2001) · American Antiquity · doi:10.2307/2694613 · Cited by 21
Household Enumeration in National Discourse
Winther, J. A. (2008) · Social Science History · doi:10.1017/s0145553200013912 · Cited by 20
Inquiry Tickets: Values, Pursuit, and Underdetermination
DiMarco, M., & Khalifa, K. (2019) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/705446 · Cited by 20
My objectivity is better than yours: contextualising debates about gender inequality
Worsdale, R., & Wright, J. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02835-5 · Cited by 20
Negotiating Novelty: Constructing the Novel within Scientific Accounts of Epigenetics
Pickersgill, M. D. (2020) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/0038038520954752 · Cited by 22
Blancke, S., & Boudry, M. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-022-00373-9 · Cited by 20
Facts and objectivity in science
Stamenkovic, P. (2022) · Interdisciplinary Science Reviews · doi:10.1080/03080188.2022.2150807 · Cited by 20
Partisan science and the democratic legitimacy ideal
Hilligardt, H. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04370-5 · Cited by 20
Value transparency and promoting warranted trust in science communication
Intemann, K. K. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04471-1 · Cited by 20
Epistemic practices: A unified account of epistemic and zetetic normativity
Fleisher, W. (2024) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/nous.12514 · Cited by 20
Accounting Science's Contribution to the Corporate Governance and Executive Accountability Problem
Shapiro, B. P. (2006) · Accounting and the Public Interest · doi:10.2308/api.2006.6.1.51 · Cited by 20
On ideals of objectivity, judgments, and bias in medical research – A comment on Stegenga
Jukola, S. (2017) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.02.001 · Cited by 20
Holman, B. (2018) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-018-1690-2 · Cited by 21
Science Journalism, Value Judgments, and the Open Science Movement
Elliott, K. C. (2019) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00071 · Cited by 20
The distribution of ethical labor in the scientific community
Politi, V., & Grinbaum, A. (2020) · Journal of Responsible Innovation · doi:10.1080/23299460.2020.1724357 · Cited by 20
Ethics and the Welfare of Fish
Bovenkerk, B., & Meijboom, F. L. B. (2020) · Animal welfare · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-41675-1_2 · Cited by 20
Towards a global list of accepted species III. Independence and stakeholder inclusion
Conix, S., Garnett, S. T., Thiele, K. R., Christidis, L., van Dijk, P. P., Bánki, O., Barik, S. K., Buckeridge, J. S., Costello, M. J., Hobern, D., et al. (2021) · Organisms Diversity & Evolution · doi:10.1007/s13127-021-00496-x · Cited by 20
Making the abstract concrete: The role of norms and values in experimental modeling
Peschard, I., & van Fraassen, B. C. (2013) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.11.004 · Cited by 20
Socioscientific Controversies: A Theoretical and Methodological Framework
Stewart, C. O. (2009) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2009.01338.x · Cited by 20
Todt, O., & Luján, J. L. (2014) · Science Technology & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243914521019 · Cited by 20
Epistemological contextualism: Its past, present, and prospects
Norman, A. P. (1999) · Philosophia · doi:10.1007/bf02383186 · Cited by 20
Is It Possible to Scientifically Reconstruct the History of Life on Earth?
Cleland, C. E. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108648981.011 · Cited by 20
Scientist engagement and the knowledge–action gap
Dupont, L., Jacob, S., & Philippe, H. (2024) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-024-02535-0 · Cited by 23
Values in science: assessing the case for mixed claims
Peters, U. (2020) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/0020174x.2020.1712235 · Cited by 19
Towards a socially constructed and objective concept of mental disorder
Gagné‐Julien, A. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02647-7 · Cited by 19
The Game as a Strategy of Learning Chemistry Among High School Students
Herrero, J. F. Á., & Valls, C. (2021) · European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education · doi:10.30935/scimath/10947 · Cited by 25
A Textbook Analysis to Uncover the Hidden Contributors of Science and Mathematics
Chacón-Díaz, L. B. (2021) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-021-00246-7 · Cited by 19
Trappes, R. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04122-5 · Cited by 19
Uncertainty, ignorance and ambiguity in crop modelling for African agricultural adaptation
Whitfield, S. (2013) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0795-3 · Cited by 20
Philosophy of science and physiotherapy: An insight into practice
Kerry, R., Maddocks, M. M., & Mumford, S. D. (2008) · Physiotherapy Theory and Practice · doi:10.1080/09593980802511797 · Cited by 19
Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members
Ferguson, M. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Reynolds, K. J. (2018) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12294 · Cited by 19
Theory choice, non-epistemic values, and machine learning
Dotan, R. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02773-2 · Cited by 19
Is the Political Slant of Psychology Research Related to Scientific Replicability?
Reinero, D. A., Wills, J. A., Brady, W. J., Mende‐Siedlecki, P., Crawford, J. T., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2020) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620924463 · Cited by 21
Trust: The Need for Public Understanding of How Science Works
Solomon, M. (2021) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1002/hast.1227 · Cited by 21
Ivanova, M. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009004657 · Cited by 19
How should we promote transient diversity in science?
Wu, J., & O’Connor, C. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04037-1 · Cited by 19
Feminist Epistemologies and Women's Lives
Code, L. B. (2008) · Blackwell Publishing Ltd eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470696132.ch12 · Cited by 19
Argumentación y conocimiento científico escolar
Candela, A. (1991) · Journal for the Study of Education and Development Infancia y Aprendizaje · doi:10.1080/02103702.1991.10822302 · Cited by 19
Virtual power: gendering the nurse–technology relationship
Fairman, J. A., & D’ANTONIO, P. O. (1999) · Nursing Inquiry · doi:10.1046/j.1440-1800.1999.00032.x · Cited by 19
Lysaght, T., & Kerridge, I. (2010) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662510368630 · Cited by 19
Institutionalized Intolerance of ADHD: Sources and Consequences
Hawthorne, S. C. C. (2010) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2010.01113.x · Cited by 19
Partisan Scholarship in Technoscientific Controversies: Reflections on Research Experience
Galis, V., & Hansson, A. (2012) · Science as Culture · doi:10.1080/09505431.2011.644783 · Cited by 20
Biddle, J. B. (2009) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/605791 · Cited by 19
Learners' perceptions of assessment: Tensions between philosophy and practice
Leach, L., Neutze, G., & Zepke, N. (2000) · Studies in the Education of Adults · doi:10.1080/02660830.2000.11661424 · Cited by 19
False Memory Syndrome: A Feminist Philosophical Approach
Park, S. M. (1997) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00018.x · Cited by 19
Wieten, S. E. (2015) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12471 · Cited by 18
From Nature of Science to Social Justice: The Political Power of Epistemic Lessons
Allchin, D. (2020) · Science: Philosophy, History and Education · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47260-3_2 · Cited by 18
Finding a context for objectivity
Montuschi, E. (2020) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02969-6 · Cited by 18
Goldfarb, B. D., & Yan, L. (2021) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.3290 · Cited by 18
Dotson, T. (2021) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/12834.001.0001 · Cited by 18
Decentring the discoverer: how AI helps us rethink scientific discovery
Clark, E., & Khosrowi, D. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03902-9 · Cited by 18
Objectivity, value-free science, and inductive risk
Hoyningen‐Huene, P. (2023) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-023-00518-9 · Cited by 18
Straightening the ‘value-laden turn’: minimising the influence of extra-scientific values in science
Stamenkovic, P. (2024) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04446-2 · Cited by 18
Integrated Data Collection in Q Methodology: Using ChatGPT From Concourse to Q-sample to Q-sort
Ramlo, S. (2024) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/15586898241262824 · Cited by 18
Feminist Engagement with Evolutionary Psychology
Fehr, C. (2011) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01221.x · Cited by 18
Kendall, B. E. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672547.003.0008 · Cited by 18
Presidential Address, PSA 2016: An Epistemology of Scientific Practice
Waters, C. K. (2019) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/704973 · Cited by 18
“Objectivity” as a bureaucratic virtue
Assor, Y. (2021) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1111/amet.12999 · Cited by 19
The Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration: History, Philosophy, and Culture
Galison, P. L., Doboszewski, J., Elder, J., Martens, N. C. M., Ashtekar, A., Enander, J., Gueguen, M., Kessler, E. A., Lalli, R., Lesourd, M., et al. (2023) · Galaxies · doi:10.3390/galaxies11010032 · Cited by 18
Pearson, M., Parkin, S., & Coomber, R. (2011) · Contemporary Drug Problems · doi:10.1177/009145091103800104 · Cited by 18
Designing a Model-Based Methodology for Science Instruction: Lessons from a Bilingual Classroom
Buxton, C. (1999) · Bilingual Research Journal · doi:10.1080/15235882.1999.10668684 · Cited by 18
V. An examination of women's professional visibility in cognitive psychology
Vaid, J., & Geraci, L. D. (2016) · Feminism & Psychology · doi:10.1177/0959353516641139 · Cited by 18
Siegel, H. (1995) · Teachers College Record The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146819509700108 · Cited by 18
Gender and Agricultural Science: Evidence From Two Surveys of Land‐Grant Scientists*
Buttel, F. H., & Goldberger, J. R. (2002) · Rural Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2002.tb00092.x · Cited by 18
Extrapolation, uncertainty factors, and the precautionary principle
Steel, D. P. (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.2011.01.002 · Cited by 18
What's Real About Virtual Reality?: Anthropology of, and in, Cyberspace
Gray, C. H., & Driscoll, M. (1992) · Visual Anthropology Review · doi:10.1525/var.1992.8.2.39 · Cited by 18
Virtue and Contingent History: Possibilities for Feminist Epistemology
Ruetsche, L. (2004) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01269.x · Cited by 18
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
