Abstract
Scientific epistemology is a topic that has sparked centuries of philosophical discourse. In particular, understanding the role that scientists play in the creation and perpetuation of scientific knowledge is a subject that continues to be hotly debated. A relative new-comer to scientific epistemology is the field of virtue epistemology, which positions knowledge creation as integrally linked to specific character traits held by the scientist. Positioning scientific research as a distinct practice, virtue epistemologists strive to understand what virtues foster robust knowledge creation. Examinations of current scientific virtue epistemology, however, reveal how framings of “the scientist” tend to be highly individualistic and position the individual scientist as an actor with a high level of agency and autonomy. Such approaches, while following more conventional scientific epistemology discourse, contrast significantly with a growing body of social science literature that emphasizes the group nature of scientific research and education. This paper makes use of this social science literature to critically examine current deficits in narratives of scientific virtue epistemology. It highlights the need for the prioritization of virtues that enable scientists to work and learn in social environments through social processes. In particular, it discusses how the virtue of docility, best understood as being “open to learning”, is a key virtue for training new scientists and for establishing robust processes of knowledge creation. By identifying current deficits in the manner in which science is taught, it demonstrates the considerable epistemic consequences of training scientists who do not embody docility in all aspects of their research activities. The paper concludes by discussing how docility may be considered a key factor in an alternate understanding of the current reproducibility crisis in modern science.
Highlights
Understanding the role that scientists play in the creation and perpetuation of scientific knowledge is a subject that continues to be hotly debated
A relative new-comer to scientific epistemology is the field of virtue epistemology, which positions knowledge creation as integrally linked to specific character traits held by the scientist
A relative newcomer to scientific epistemology discussion is the field of virtue epistemology, which positions knowledge creation as integrally linked to specific character traits held by the scientist
Summary
Understanding the role that scientists play in the creation and perpetuation of scientific knowledge is a subject that continues to be hotly debated. Baehr elaborates a notion of intellectual virtues as ‘‘a character trait that contributes to its possessor’s personal intellectual worth on account of its involving a positive psychological orientation towards epistemic goods’’ (Baehr: 102) In this way, virtues are not necessary for knowledge (though they are important2), and the existence of vicious individuals being epistemically successful does not constitute an objection to the virtue epistemology programme applied to scientific research. Accounts tend to focus on individual interactions and not on science as a group activity in which the social collective must be considered the fundamental unit of successful science Such observations challenge current virtue epistemology discussions, and highlight the deficit of attention paid to the learning traditions, practices and social conventions of scientific research. Such observations draw attention to a key element of scientific epistemology – that the creation of knowledge is not limited to the individual scientist’s interactions with data, to models (Weisberg 2013) or theories, but rather with the learnt traditions that enable them to produce, disseminate and recombine datasets
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
