Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Scepticism and Implicit Bias.Jennifer Saul - 2013 - Disputatio 5 (37):243-263.
    Saul_Jennifer, Scepticism and Implicit Bias.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   31 citations  
  • Implicit Bias.Michael Brownstein - 2017 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    “Implicit bias” is a term of art referring to relatively unconscious and relatively automatic features of prejudiced judgment and social behavior. While psychologists in the field of “implicit social cognition” study “implicit attitudes” toward consumer products, self-esteem, food, alcohol, political values, and more, the most striking and well-known research has focused on implicit attitudes toward members of socially stigmatized groups, such as African-Americans, women, and the LGBTQ community.[1] For example, imagine Frank, who explicitly believes that women and men are equally (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  • Experimental Philosophy and the Underrepresentation of Women.Carrie Figdor & Matt L. Drabek - 2016 - In W. Buckwalter & J. Sytsma (eds.), A Companion to Experimental Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 590-602.
    This paper summarizes recent and ongoing experimental work regarding the reality, nature, effects, and causes of the underrepresentation of women in academic philosophy. We first present empirical data on several aspects of underrepresentation, and then consider various reasons why this gender imbalance is problematic. We then turn to the published and preliminary results of empirical work aimed at identifying factors that might explain it.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Remco Heesen & Liam Kofi Bright - 2020 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:axz029.
    Prepublication peer review should be abolished. We consider the effects that such a change will have on the social structure of science, paying particular attention to the changed incentive structure and the likely effects on the behaviour of individual scientists. We evaluate these changes from the perspective of epistemic consequentialism. We find that where the effects of abolishing prepublication peer review can be evaluated with a reasonable level of confidence based on presently available evidence, they are either positive or neutral. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Précis.Berit Brogaard - 2013 - Disputatio 5 (37):311-314.
  • Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes.Anthony G. Greenwald & Mahzarin R. Banaji - 1995 - Psychological Review 102 (1):4-27.
  • Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.J. Scott Armstrong - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):63-84.
    This paper reviews the published empirical evidence concerning journal peer review consisting of 68 papers, all but three published since 1975. Peer review improves quality, but its use to screen papers has met with limited success. Current procedures to assure quality and fairness seem to discourage scientific advancement, especially important innovations, because findings that conflict with current beliefs are often judged to have defects. Editors can use procedures to encourage the publication of papers with innovative findings such as invited papers, (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Cognitive Bias, Scepticism and Understanding.J. Adam Carter & Duncan Pritchard - unknown
    In recent work, Mark Alfano and Jennifer Saul have put forward a similar kind of provocative sceptical challenge. Both appeal to recent literature in empirical psychology to show that our judgments across a wide range of cases are riddled with unreliable cognitive heuristics and biases. Likewise, they both conclude that we know a lot less than we have hitherto supposed, at least on standard conceptions of what knowledge involves. It is argued that even if one grants the empirical claims that (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Philosophy Journal Practices and Opportunities for Bias.Carole J. Lee & Christian D. Schunn - 2010 - American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Bias in Peer Review.Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin - 2013 - Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64 (1):2-17.
    Research on bias in peer review examines scholarly communication and funding processes to assess the epistemic and social legitimacy of the mechanisms by which knowledge communities vet and self-regulate their work. Despite vocal concerns, a closer look at the empirical and methodological limitations of research on bias raises questions about the existence and extent of many hypothesized forms of bias. In addition, the notion of bias is predicated on an implicit ideal that, once articulated, raises questions about the normative implications (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • Social-Cognitive Barriers to Ethical Authorship.Jordan R. Schoenherr - 2015 - Frontiers in Psychology 6.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Crunchy Methods in Practical Mathematics.Michael Wood - 2001 - Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal 14.
    This paper focuses on the distinction between methods which are mathematically "clever", and those which are simply crude, typically repetitive and computer intensive, approaches for "crunching" out answers to problems. Examples of the latter include simulated probability distributions and resampling methods in statistics, and iterative methods for solving equations or optimisation problems. Most of these methods require software support, but this is easily provided by a PC. The paper argues that the crunchier methods often have substantial advantages from the perspectives (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Social Biases and Solution for Procedural Objectivity.Carole J. Lee & Christian D. Schunn - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-73.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • Facts, Concepts, and Theories: The Shape of Psychology's Epistemic Triangle.Armando Machado, Orlando Lourenço & Francisco J. Silva - 2000 - Behavior and Philosophy 28 (1/2):1 - 40.
    In this essay we introduce the idea of an epistemic triangle, with factual, theoretical, and conceptual investigations at its vertices, and argue that whereas scientific progress requires a balance among the three types of investigations, psychology's epistemic triangle is stretched disproportionately in the direction of factual investigations. Expressed by a variety of different problems, this unbalance may be created by a main operative theme—the obsession of psychology with a narrow and mechanical view of the scientific method and a misguided aversion (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Naturalizing Logic: A Case Study of the Ad Hominem and Implicit Bias.Madeleine Ransom - 2019 - In Dov Gabbay, Lorenzo Magnani, Woosuk Park & Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (eds.), Natural Arguments: A Tribute to John Woods. London: College Publications. pp. 575-589.
    The fallacies, as traditionally conceived, are wrong ways of reasoning that nevertheless appear attractive to us. Recently, however, Woods (2013) has argued that they don’t merit such a title, and that what we take to be fallacies are instead largely virtuous forms of reasoning. This reformation of the fallacies forms part of Woods’ larger project to naturalize logic. In this paper I will look to his analysis of the argumentum ad hominem as a case study for the prospects of this (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Social Biases and Solutions for Procedural Objectivity.L. E. E. J. & CHRISTIAN D. SCHUNN - 2011 - Hypatia 26 (2):352-373.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Using a Dialectical Scientific Brief in Peer Review.Arthur E. Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.
    This paper presents a framework that editors, peer reviewers, and authors can use to identify and resolve efficiently disputes that arise during peer review in scientific journals. The framework is called a scientific dialectical brief. In this framework, differences among authors and reviewers are formatted into specific assertions and the support each party provides for its position. A literature review suggests that scientists use five main types of support; empirical data, reasoning, speculation, feelings, and status. It is suggested that the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Seeing is Believing: The Effect of Brain Images on Judgments of Scientific Reasoning.David P. McCabe & Alan D. Castel - 2008 - Cognition 107 (1):343-352.
  • Barriers to Scientific Contributions: The Author's Formula.J. Scott Armstrong - 1982 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2):197-199.
  • Now That We Know How Low the Reliability is, What Shall We Do?Kurt Salzinger - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):162-162.
  • Reflections From the Peer Review Mirror.Domenic V. Cicchetti - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):167-186.
  • What to Do About Peer Review: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?Thomas R. Zentall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):166-167.
  • Do Peer Reviewers Really Agree More on Rejections Than Acceptances? A Random-Agreement Benchmark Says They Do Not.Gerald S. Wasserman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):165-166.
  • Chairman's Action: The Importance of Executive Decisions in Peer Review.Peter Tyrer - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):164-165.
  • Disagreement Among Journal Reviewers: No Cause for Undue Alarm.Lawrence J. Stricker - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):163-164.
  • In Praise of Randomness.Peter H. Schönemann - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):162-163.
  • Toward Openness and Fairness in the Review Process.Byron P. Rourke - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):161-161.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Some Indices of the Reliability of Peer Review.Robert Rosenthal - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):160-161.
  • Is Unreliability in Peer Review Harmful?Henry L. Roediger - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):159-160.
  • The Process of Peer Review: Unanswered Questions.Linda D. Nelson - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):158-159.
  • Reflections on the Peer Review Process.Herbert W. Marsh & Samuel Ball - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):157-158.
  • Justice, Efficiency and Epistemology in the Peer Review of Scientific Manuscripts.Michael J. Mahoney - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):157-157.
  • Should the Blinded Lead the Blinded?Stephen P. Lock - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):156-157.
  • Why is the Reliability of Peer Review so Low?Donald Laming - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):154-156.
  • Do We Really Want More “Reliable” Reviewers?Helena Chmura Kraemer - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):152-154.
  • Confusion Between Reviewer Reliability and Wise Editorial and Funding Decisions.Charles A. Kiesler - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):151-152.
  • Referee Agreement in Context.Lowell L. Hargens - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):150-151.
  • Is There an Alternative to Peer Review?Richard Greene - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):149-150.
  • Replication, Reliability and Peer Review: A Case Study.Michael E. Gorman - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):149-149.
  • On Forecasting Validity and Finessing Reliability.J. Barnard Gilmore - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):148-149.
  • Peer Review is Not Enough: Editors Must Work with Librarians to Ensure Access to Research.Steve Fuller - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):147-148.
  • Journal Availability and the Quality of Published Research.Jack M. Fletcher - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):146-147.
  • When Nonreliability of Reviews Indicates Solid Science.Douglas Lee Eckberg - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):145-146.
  • Different Rates of Agreement on Acceptance and Rejection: A Statistical Artifact?Marilyn E. Demorest - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):144-145.
  • Consensus and the Reliability of Peer-Review Evaluations.Stephen Cole - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):140-141.
  • Does Group Discussion Contribute Reliability of Complex Judgments?Patricia Cohen - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):139-140.
  • Peer Review: Explicit Criteria and Training Can Help.Fred Delcomyn - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):144-144.
  • What Should Be Done Improve Reviewing?Rick Crandall - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):143-143.
  • The Predictive Validity of Peer Review: A Neglected Issue.Robert F. Bornstein - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):138-139.
  • Reliability, Fairness, Objectivity and Other Inappropriate Goals in Peer Review.John C. Bailar - 1991 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (1):137-138.