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 801–900 of 1,002
Finkler, K. (2000) · Medical Anthropology · doi:10.1080/01459740.2000.9966167 · Cited by 18
Ideology, Heuristics and Rationality in the Context of Discovery
Koertge, N. (1993) · Boston studies in the philosophy of science · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1185-2_6 · Cited by 18
The scientific study of consciousness cannot and should not be morally neutral
Mazor, M., Brown, S., Ciaunica, A., Demertzi, A., Fahrenfort, J., Faivre, N., Francken, J. C., Lamy, D., Lenggenhager, B., Moutoussis, M., et al. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221110222 · Cited by 17
The moral roles of democratically elected politicians and civil servants
Madsen, T. H. (2024) · Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy · doi:10.1080/13698230.2024.2380220 · Cited by 17
Fearing fear: gender and economic discourse
Nelson, J. A. (2014) · Mind & Society · doi:10.1007/s11299-014-0148-6 · Cited by 17
Epistemic closure, assumptions and topics of inquiry
Bello, M. D. (2014) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0522-2 · Cited by 17
“Agreement” in the IPCC Confidence measure
Rehg, W. R., & Staley, K. W. (2016) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics · doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2016.10.008 · Cited by 17
Schroeder, S. A. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03774-z · Cited by 17
Toward pluralizing ecology: Finding common ground across sociocultural and scientific perspectives
Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Rademacher, A. M. (2022) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.4231 · Cited by 18
Looking beyond values: The legitimacy of social perspectives, opinions and interests in science
Hilligardt, H. (2022) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-022-00490-w · Cited by 17
McClimans, L. M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197572078.001.0001 · Cited by 17
Re-Examining the Darwinian Basis for Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic
Millstein, R. L. (2015) · Ethics Policy & Environment · doi:10.1080/21550085.2015.1111617 · Cited by 17
Tofu feminism: can feminist theory absorb evolutionary psychology?
Kelly, S. (2014) · Dialectical Anthropology · doi:10.1007/s10624-014-9353-2 · Cited by 19
The Metaphorical Conception of Scientific Explanation: Rereading Mary Hesse
Rentetzi, M. (2005) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-006-0091-2 · Cited by 17
Bland, S. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03572-7 · Cited by 19
PISA 2018 Well-being Framework
OECD (2019) · Programme for international student assessment/Internationale Schulleistungsstudie · doi:10.1787/38a34353-en · Cited by 23
New Methodological Perspectives on Observation and Experimentation in Science
González, W. J. (2010) · Netbiblo eBooks · doi:10.4272/978-84-9745-530-5 · Cited by 17
Oppression by Scientific Method: The Use of Science to “Other” Sexual Minorities
Mohr, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Hate Studies · doi:10.33972/jhs.57 · Cited by 17
A normative analysis of nursing knowledge
Zanotti, R., & Chiffi, D. (2015) · Nursing Inquiry · doi:10.1111/nin.12108 · Cited by 17
Sherman, W. (2004) · Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education · doi:10.1080/14926150409556627 · Cited by 17
ON THE ROLE OF VALUES IN ECONOMIC SCIENCE: ROBBINS AND HIS CRITICS
Scarantino, A. (2009) · Journal of the History of Economic Thought · doi:10.1017/s1053837209990253 · Cited by 17
Feministische Wissenschaftskritik und Epistemologie
Singer, M. (2010) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92041-2_34 · Cited by 19
Diversity and the Fate of Objectivity
Freedman, K. L. (2009) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691720902741373 · Cited by 17
A Hasty Retreat From Evidence: The Recalcitrance of Relativism in Feminist Epistemology
Clough, S. (1998) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1998.tb01386.x · Cited by 17
Nationalism, Local Histories and the Making of Data in Archaeology
Tomášková, S. (2003) · Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute · doi:10.1111/1467-9655.00160 · Cited by 17
Toward a feminist natural science
Kerr, A. (1998) · Women s Studies International Forum · doi:10.1016/s0277-5395(97)00081-2 · Cited by 17
Moser, S. (1996) · Antiquity · doi:10.1017/s0003598x00084088 · Cited by 17
Scientific Knowledge: A Stakeholder Theory
Rolin, K. H. (2009) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230246867_4 · Cited by 17
Crowe, J. A., & Goldberger, J. R. (2009) · Rural Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.2009.tb00702.x · Cited by 17
Knowledge, bodies, and values: Reproductive technologies and their scientific context
Longino, H. E. (1992) · Inquiry · doi:10.1080/00201749208602297 · Cited by 17
Self-citationSoutherland, S. A., & Gess‐Newsome, J. (1999) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(199903)83:2 · Cited by 99
Science in Agriculture: A Reply to Molnar, Duffy, Cummins, and Van Santen and to Flora
Kloppenburg, J. R. (1992) · Rural Sociology · doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1992.tb00460.x · Cited by 17
What’s so great about Feyerabend? Against Method, forty years on
Kidd, I. J. (2015) · Metascience · doi:10.1007/s11016-015-0004-2 · Cited by 17
Psychologists update their beliefs about effect sizes after replication studies
McDiarmid, A. D., Tullett, A. M., Whitt, C. M., Vazire, S., Smaldino, P. E., & Stephens, J. E. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01220-7 · Cited by 16
Science communication, politics and power: Social justice perspectives
Dawson, E., & Lock, S. J. (2025) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/09636625251330837 · Cited by 19
Cruz, H. D., & Smedt, J. D. (2016) · Religion Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1080/2153599x.2015.1107252 · Cited by 16
Images of Objective Knowledge Construction in Sexual Selection Chapters of Evolution Textbooks
Fuselier, L., Eason, P. K., Jackson, J. K., & Spaulding, S. A. (2018) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-018-9978-7 · Cited by 16
Philosophy of Science for Biologists
Kampourakis, K., & Uller, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108648981 · Cited by 17
Scientific practice as ecological-enactive co-construction
de Oliveira, G. S., van Es, T., & Hipólito, I. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04215-1 · Cited by 16
Lam, V., & Rousselot, Y. (2024) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-024-00579-4 · Cited by 16
Feminist Philosophy of Science
Bueter, A. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108956055 · Cited by 17
Values in science: what are values, anyway?
Elliott, K. C., & Korf, R. (2024) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-024-00615-3 · Cited by 16
Ross‐Hellauer, T., Bonn, N. A., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024) · Research Evaluation · doi:10.1093/reseval/rvae055 · Cited by 16
Rationally warranted promise: the virtue-economic account of pursuit-worthiness
Duerr, P. M., & Fischer, E. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05077-5 · Cited by 16
Meghani, Z. (2014) · Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9511-1 · Cited by 16
Indonesian Pre-service Biology Teachers’ and Biology Education Professors’ Views on Evolution
Aini, R. Q., Rachmatullah, A., Harliadi, M. D., & Ha, M. (2020) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-020-00127-5 · Cited by 16
Progress, pluralism and science: moving from alienated to engaged pluralism
Young, K. (2020) · Review of International Political Economy · doi:10.1080/09692290.2020.1830833 · Cited by 16
Understanding the Role of Objectivity in Machine Learning and Research Evaluation
Javed, S., Adewumi, T., Liwicki, F., & Liwicki, M. (2021) · Philosophies · doi:10.3390/philosophies6010022 · Cited by 20
Catala, A. (2022) · Journal of Social Philosophy · doi:10.1111/josp.12465 · Cited by 16
Why Trust Raoult? How Social Indicators Inform the Reputations of Experts
Branch, T. Y., Origgi, G., & Morisseau, T. (2022) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2022.2042421 · Cited by 16
How do value-judgements enter model-based assessments of climate sensitivity?
Undorf, S., Pulkkinen, K., Wikman–Svahn, P., & Bender, F. A. ‐. (2022) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-022-03435-7 · Cited by 16
Scientific Reasoning and Argumentation from a Bayesian Perspective
Szu, E., & Osborne, J. F. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_4 · Cited by 17
Contextualism in Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
Rolin, K. H. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6835-5_2 · Cited by 16
Whose social values? Evaluating Canada's ‘death of evidence’ controversy
Goldenberg, M. J. (2015) · Canadian Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/00455091.2015.1079003 · Cited by 19
Ganote, C., & Longo, P. (2014) · Critical Sociology · doi:10.1177/0896920514537843 · Cited by 17
Are there limits to scientists’ obligations to seek and engage dissenters?
Intemann, K. K., & de Melo‐Martín, I. (2014) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-014-0414-5 · Cited by 16
Stewart, C. O. (2005) · Western Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/10570310500076858 · Cited by 16
Fuselier, L., Jackson, J. K., & Stoiko, R. R. (2015) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21205 · Cited by 16
Arguments for the cognitive social sciences
Kaidesoja, T., Sarkia, M., & Hyyryläinen, M. (2019) · Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour · doi:10.1111/jtsb.12226 · Cited by 16
The Very Idea of Feminist Epistemology
Nelson, L. H. (1995) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb00736.x · Cited by 17
The role of truth when communicating knowledge across epistemic difference
Bergin, L. A. (2001) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691720110093351 · Cited by 16
Embedding values: how science and society jointly valence a concept—the case of ADHD
Hawthorne, S. C. C. (2010) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.12.005 · Cited by 17
Twenty Years of Feminist Philosophy
Ferguson, A. (1994) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1994.tb00457.x · Cited by 16
Indicators of Ecosystem Integrity
Regier, H. A. (1992) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-4659-7_13 · Cited by 16
What is Philosophy of the Geosciences?
Ohnesorge, M., & Watkins, A. (2024) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12962 · Cited by 15
On Cognitive and Social Values: A Reply to My Critics
LACEY, H. M. (1999) · Science & Education · doi:10.1023/a:1008660400494 · Cited by 15
Silence and the Limitations of Contextual Objectivity
Hundleby, C. E. (2009) · International Feminist Journal of Politics · doi:10.1080/14616740902789625 · Cited by 15
What we owe each other, epistemologically speaking: ethico-political values in social epistemology
Goldberg, S. C. (2018) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-018-01928-6 · Cited by 16
Politically Engaged Scholarship in Social Movement Studies
Rucht, D. (2019) · Palgrave studies in the history of social movements · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-03804-5_6 · Cited by 15
Herington, J., & Tanona, S. (2020) · The Hastings Center Report · doi:10.1002/hast.1196 · Cited by 15
Standpoint Epistemology and Nursing Science
Reed, P. G. (2021) · Nursing Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08943184211051361 · Cited by 16
Argumentation, cognition, and the epistemic benefits of cognitive diversity
Pesonen, R. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03786-9 · Cited by 18
Epistemic Structure in Non-Summative Social Knowledge
Hiller, A., & Randall, R. W. (2022) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2022.2121621 · Cited by 15
A Framework for Transparency in Precision Livestock Farming
Elliott, K. C., & Werkheiser, I. (2023) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani13213358 · Cited by 17
Dawson, E., Bista, R., Colborne, A., McCubbin, B.-J., Godec, S., Patel, U., Archer, L., & Mau, A. (2024) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21856 · Cited by 23
Bias in Peer Review of Organic Farming Grant Applications
Rasmussen, J., Langer, V., & Alrøe, H. F. (2006) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-005-6105-6 · Cited by 15
The epistemic benefits of religious disagreement
Dormandy, K. (2019) · Religious Studies · doi:10.1017/s0034412518000847 · Cited by 15
COVID-19: The need of an integrated and critical view
El-Hani, C. N., & Machado, V. (2020) · Ethnobiology and Conservation · doi:10.15451/ec2020-05-9.18-1-20 · Cited by 17
Epistemic Equality: Distributive Epistemic Justice in the Context of Justification
Miller, B., & Pinto, M. (2022) · Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal · doi:10.1353/ken.2022.0011 · Cited by 15
Toward Understanding Science as a Whole
Takriti, R. A., Tairab, H. H., Alhosani, N. M., Elhoweris, H., Schofield, L. M., Rabbani, L. M., & AlAmirah, I. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-022-00404-5 · Cited by 15
Addressing problems in profit-driven research: how can feminist conceptions of objectivity help?
Intemann, K. K., & de Melo‐Martín, I. (2014) · European Journal for Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s13194-013-0079-9 · Cited by 19
Feminist Radical Empiricism, Values, and Evidence
Yap, A. (2015) · Hypatia · doi:10.1111/hypa.12221 · Cited by 17
Spatial variation and linear modeling of ecological data
Negrete‐Yankelevich, S., & Fox, G. A. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672547.003.0011 · Cited by 15
Third wave development expertise
Byskov, M. F. (2017) · Oxford Development Studies · doi:10.1080/13600818.2016.1276547 · Cited by 15
A failure to communicate: the fact-value divide and the Putnam-Dasgupta debate
Su, H.-C., & Colander, D. (2013) · Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics · doi:10.23941/ejpe.v6i2.131 · Cited by 15
Pluralization through epistemic competition: scientific change in times of data-intensive biology
Groß, F., Kranke, N., & Meunier, R. (2019) · History & Philosophy of the Life Sciences · doi:10.1007/s40656-018-0239-5 · Cited by 15
Normativity in the Philosophy of Science
Kaiser, M. I. (2019) · Metaphilosophy · doi:10.1111/meta.12348 · Cited by 15
Mixture models for overdispersed data
Rhodes, J. R. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672547.003.0013 · Cited by 15
The diffusion of theories: A functional approach
Martens, B. V. D. V., & Goodrum, A. (2005) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.20285 · Cited by 15
Ghamari‐Tabrizi, B. (1996) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691729608578822 · Cited by 15
An overview of women's health in the U.S. since the mid-1960 s
Rosser, S. V. (2002) · History and Technology · doi:10.1080/0734151022000023802 · Cited by 15
Sofaer, J. R. (2012) · Norwegian Archaeological Review · doi:10.1080/00293652.2012.703686 · Cited by 15
What’s right about Carnap, Neurath and the Left Vienna Circle thesis: a refutation
Uebel, T. (2010) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A · doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.03.001 · Cited by 15
Mitos, creencias, valores: cómo hacer más «científica» la ciencia; cómo hacer la «realidad» más real
Sedeño, E. P. (2008) · Isegoría · doi:10.3989/isegoria.2008.i38.404 · Cited by 15
Democratizing Strategies for Industry-Funded Medical Research: A Cautionary Tale
Pinto, M. F. (2018) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/699720 · Cited by 16
Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?
Goldman, A. I. (2002) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/0195138791.003.0007 · Cited by 15
A typology of Nietzsche's biology
Tauber, A. I. (1994) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/bf00849912 · Cited by 15
Is Biology a Political Science?
Tauber, A. I. (1999) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1313555 · Cited by 15
Informed Consent in Medicine in Comparison with Consent in Other Areas of Human Activity
Clarke, S. (2001) · The Southern Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1111/j.2041-6962.2001.tb01812.x · Cited by 15
Foucault's Normative Epistemology
Alcoff, L. M. (2013) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118324905.ch9 · Cited by 15
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
