Some remarks on the division of cognitive labor
Keywords:social epistemology, economic epistemology, divison of cognitive labor
Since the publication of Kitcher’s influential paper The Division of Cognitive Labor, some philosophers wondered about these two related issues: (1) which is the optimal distribution of cognitive efforts among rival methods within a scientific community?, and (2) whether and how can a community achieve such an optimal distribution? Though not committing to any specific answer to question (1), I claim that issue (2) does not depend exclusively on an invisible hand like mechanism, since both intra-scientific and extra-scientific institutions may play a major role. Finally, I examine some practical difficulties of reallocating scientists from a method to another, which leads to stress the importance of well-planned training and recruitment.
Bonatesta, Antonio (2015). 'Il reclutamento impossibile. Il precariato nell’università italiana raccontato senza “casi esemplari”'. Analysis, Rivista di cultura e politica scientifica, 1-2015.
Finkelstein, Martin J. (2010). 'Diversification in the academic workforce: The case of the US and implications for Europe'. European Review, 18(S1), S141-S156.
Gillies, Donald (2008). How should research be organised?. College Publications.
Goldman, Alvin I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world, Clarendon Press.
Goldman, Alvin I. (2010). 'Social Epistemology', The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/epistemology-social/.
Goldman, Alvin I. (2011). 'A guide to social epistemology'. In Goldman & Whitcomb (2011), Social epistemology: essential readings. Oxford University Press, 11-37.
Goldman, Alvin I., & Shaked, Moshe (1991). 'An economic model of scientific activity and truth acquisition'. Philosophical Studies, 63(1), 31-55.
Hands, D. Wade (1997). 'Caveat emptor: Economics and contemporary philosophy of science'. Philosophy of Science, S107-S116.
Kitcher, Philip (1990). 'The division of cognitive labor'. The Journal of Philosophy, 5-22.
Kitcher, Philip (1993). The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientiﬁc revolutions. University of Chicago Presss.
Kuhn, Thomas. S. (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Teadition and Change. University of Chicago Press.
Kummerfeld, Elrich, & Zollman, Kevin J. (forthcoming). 'Conservatism and the scientific state of nature'. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Lakatos, I. (1970a). 'Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes' . In Lakatos, Imre, & Musgrave, Alan (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, pp. 8-101.
Lakatos, Imre (1970b). 'History of science and its rational reconstructions. In Lakatos, I mre, & Musgrave, Alan (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, pp. 102-138.
Mäki, Uskali (2005). 'Economic epistemology: Hopes and horrors'. Episteme, 1(03), 211-222.
Muldoon, Ryan (2013). 'Diversity and the division of cognitive labor'. Philosophy Compass, 8(2), 117-125.
Muldoon, Ryan, & Weisberg, Michael (2011). 'Robustness and idealization in models of cognitive labor'. Synthese, 183(2), 161-174.
Merton, Robert K. (1957). 'Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science'. American sociological review, 635-659.
Origgi, Gloria, & Ramello, Giovanni B. (2015). 'Current Dynamics of Scholarly Publishing'. Evaluation Review, pp. 1-16.
Payette, Nicolas (2012). 'Agent-Based Models of Science'. In Scharnhorst, Andrea, Börner, Katy, van den Besselaar, Peter (Eds.), Models of Science Dynamics. Encounter Between Complexity Theory and Information Sciences. Springer, pp. 127-157.
Peirce, Charles S. (1879). 'Note on the theory of the economy of research'. In Report of the Superintendent of the United States Coast Survey Showing the Progress of the Work for the Fiscal Year Ending with June 1876, pp. 197-201. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC.
Popper, Karl R. (1959). The logic of scientiﬁc discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Popper, Karl R. (1970). 'Normal science and its dangers'.In Lakatos, I mre, & Musgrave, Alan (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, pp. 51-58.
Rowbottom, Darrell P. (2011). 'Kuhn vs. Popper on criticism and dogmatism in science: a resolution at the group level'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(1), 117-124.
Strevens, Michael (2003). 'The role of the priority rule in science'. The Journal of philosophy, 55-79.
Strevens, Michael (2013). 'Herding and the quest for credit'. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20(1), 19-34.
Planck, Max (1949). 'Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers', trans. Frank Gaynor (New York, 1949).
Weisberg, Michael (2010). 'New approaches to the division of cognitive labor'. In Magnus, P. D., & Busch, J. (Eds.). (2010). New waves in philosophy of science. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 250-269.
Wray, K. Brad (2000). 'Invisible hands and the success of science'. Philosophy of Science, 163-175.
Zamora Bonilla, Jesus P. (2012). 'The economics of scientific knowledge'. U. Mäki (éd.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science. The Philosophy of Economics, Elsevier, pp. 823-862.
Zollman, Kevin J. (2014). 'The credit economy and the economic rationality of science'. Unpublished Manuscript. Available at: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/conference/rational-choice/Zollman.pdf.
LicenseAuthors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).