David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Hypatia 26 (2):352-73 (2011)
An empirically sensitive formulation of the norms of transformative criticism must recognize that even public and shared standards of evaluation can be implemented in ways that unintentionally perpetuate and reproduce forms of social bias that are epistemically detrimental. Helen Longino’s theory can explain and redress such social bias by treating peer evaluations as hypotheses based on data and by requiring a kind of perspectival diversity that bears, not on the content of the community’s knowledge claims, but on the beliefs and norms of the culture of the knowledge community itself. To illustrate how socializing cognition can bias evaluations, we focus on peer-review practices, with some discussion of peer-review practices in philosophy. Data include responses to surveys by editors from general philosophy journals, as well as analyses of reviews and editorial decisions for the 2007 Cognitive Science Society Conference.
|Keywords||procedural objectivity objectivity implicit bias|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Jennifer Saul (2012). Ranking Exercises in Philosophy and Implicit Bias. Journal of Social Philosophy 43 (3):256-273.
Susann Wagenknecht (2015). Facing the Incompleteness of Epistemic Trust: Managing Dependence in Scientific Practice. Social Epistemology 29 (2):160-184.
Similar books and articles
L. E. E. J. & CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN (2011). Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity. Hypatia 26 (2):352-373.
Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin (2013). Bias in Peer Review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
Andrew Collier, Margaret Scotford Archer & William Outhwaite (eds.) (2004). Defending Objectivity: Essays in Honour of Andrew Collier. Routledge.
Malcolm Williams (2006). Can Scientists Be Objective? Social Epistemology 20 (2):163 – 180.
Sara Worley (1995). Feminism, Objectivity, and Analytic Philosophy. Hypatia 10 (3):138 - 156.
Eric Mandelbaum (2015). Attitude, Inference, Association: On the Propositional Structure of Implicit Bias. Noûs 49 (3):n/a-n/a.
Lorraine Daston (2007). Objectivity. Distributed by the MIT Press.
Carrie Figdor (2010). Objectivity in the News: Finding a Way Forward. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 25 (1):19 – 33.
Daniel Kelly & Erica Roedder (2008). Racial Cognition and the Ethics of Implicit Bias. Philosophy Compass 3 (3):522–540.
Philip Lewin (1984). IV. Longino and Heidegger on Objectivity. Inquiry 27 (1-4):145-148.
Jennifer Tannoch-Bland (1997). From Aperspectival Objectivity to Strong Objectivity: The Quest for Moral Objectivity. Hypatia 12 (1):155 - 178.
Stephen Gaukroger (2012). Objectivity: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Deborah K. Heikes (2004). The Bias Paradox: Why It's Not Just for Feminists Anymore. Synthese 138 (3):315 - 335.
C. Daryl Cameron, Joshua Knobe & B. Keith Payne (2010). Do Theories of Implicit Race Bias Change Moral Judgments? Social Justice Research 23:272-289.
Added to index2012-07-24
Total downloads32 ( #98,730 of 1,725,189 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #45,563 of 1,725,189 )
How can I increase my downloads?