Friday, July 15, 2022
HomePhilosophyGroup Science – The Brains Weblog

Group Science – The Brains Weblog


Welcome to the Brains Weblog’s Symposium sequence on the Cognitive Science of Philosophy. The intention of the sequence is to look at the usage of various strategies to generate philosophical perception. Every symposium is comprised of two components. Within the goal publish, a practitioner describes their use of the strategy below dialogue and explains why they discover it philosophically fruitful. A commentator then responds to the goal publish and discusses the strengths and limitations of the strategy.

On this symposium, Karen Kovaka discusses group science and its place in social epistemology and philosophy of science, with Catherine Kendig offering commentary.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Group Science and Philosophy of Science

Karen Kovaka

_____________

The time period “scientist” is youthful than the US of America. William Whewell first used it, famously, in 1833, to explain the mathematician and astronomer Mary Somerville. Earlier than the invention of the time period, empirical researchers have been extra typically referred to as “pure philosophers” or “males of science.” These researchers differed from the scientists of at the moment in additional than simply identify. “Scientist” has solely been a salaried occupation for about 100 and fifty years. Till late within the eighteenth century, science was an novice pursuit, not knowledgeable one, which meant that researchers needed to finance their very own tasks, fundraise, or depend on rich patrons for help.

At present, nevertheless, scientific analysis carried out by non-professionals is the exception moderately than the rule. Amateurs nonetheless conduct various varieties of investigation, from surveying hen migrations to classifying house telescope photographs to monitoring adjustments in air and water high quality. However this sort of analysis, which I’ll name group science, accounts for less than a tiny fraction of the modern scientific enterprise.

Regardless of this minority standing, group science can be within the midst of a twenty-first century renaissance. Individuals are waking as much as its potential to increase each the standard and amount of scientific analysis. For the reason that Nineties, group science has gone from a spot of relative obscurity to having billions of {dollars} of monetary funding, in depth well-liked help, and (satirically) a number of skilled societies and tutorial journals devoted to its research and development.

Philosophers of science, too, have turned their consideration to group science, however extra typically as an object of study than as a technique for producing philosophical insights in its personal proper. Probably the most well-known philosophical remedies of group science give attention to a mixture of epistemic and moral questions, comparable to how rigorous and goal group science is, and what analysis ethics within the context of group science appear to be (e.g. Elliott and Rosenberg 2019). My work in group science offers with such questions, however I additionally collaboratively design and implement group science tasks. One lesson I’ve realized as a practitioner is that group science can do greater than produce scientific information—it may possibly additionally assist take a look at, refine, and prolong key concepts in social epistemology. It’s because many of those key concepts relaxation on empirical claims about group information manufacturing, and group science tasks enable for investigation of those claims.

Right here is an instance drawn from a mission I helped design. In 2016, I used to be a part of a workforce that developed a protocol for instructing highschool college students within the Galápagos Islands to watch sea lions on city seashores and report information about their conduct. Utilizing this protocol, teenaged group scientists spent three discipline seasons evaluating sea lion conduct on completely different seashores. They discovered that sea lions confirmed much less aggression in the direction of people however extra aggression towards each other on seashores which have extra of a human presence and the place sea lions are pressured to crowd collectively.

In creating this protocol, we have been concerned about two main issues. First, in sea lion behavioral ecology. We needed to know the way human presence and disturbance impacts sea lion conduct. Second, within the instructional outcomes for our individuals. We needed to check claims from the educational literature about how taking part in group science analysis impacts group scientists.

We’ll put aside the behavioral ecology (however, examine our outcomes: Walsh et al. 2020) and give attention to the tutorial outcomes as a substitute. Proponents of group science have theorized that being a part of a group science mission can produce a wide range of good outcomes for individuals: they could achieve scientific information, enhance their understanding of the character of science, change into extra invested in environmental conservation, or strengthen their belief in science (see Brossard, Lewenstein, & Bonney, 2005; Crall et al., 2013; Fortmann, 2008). The precise proof supporting these solutions is considerably restricted, partly as a result of many group science tasks don’t construct evaluation into their construction. Initiatives additionally differ a lot when it comes to the construction and individuals that figuring out which options are or usually are not efficacious in producing these hoped-for instructional outcomes is a posh activity.

Happily, it’s potential and possible to hold out group science tasks that do measure instructional outcomes. In our case, we administered a pre- and post-test composed of multiple-choice questions, Likert scale survey gadgets, and open-ended inquiries to measure three sorts of outcomes—information of the character of science, information about sea lions, and attitudes towards conservation. Between the pre- and post-tests, we discovered statistically vital will increase in right solutions to questions measuring information of the character of science and information about sea lions. We additionally discovered that individuals’ views of nature grew to become extra pro-environmental over the course of a discipline season.

These outcomes help the concept participation in group science can have instructional advantages throughout completely different epistemic and psychological domains. And, in comparison with many group science tasks, the place individuals are already extremely educated about or invested in science, our mission engaged adolescents with restricted training about and publicity to science. After all, establishing common claims about group science and academic outcomes requires way more information than a single mission can present. The purpose of the instance is as an instance the types of empirical claims group science tasks can examine, and the way this investigation can occur in follow. The record of claims we’d examine utilizing group science additionally extends far past this instance. Along with claims that group science impacts individuals’ attitudes towards or information of science, we’d assess claims concerning the following:

  • Epistemic rigor: How dependable can the outcomes of group science be? What options make them roughly dependable? How ought to we assess the reliability of group science?
  • Co-creation of tasks: How do tasks which can be co-created between professionals and amateurs differ from tasks which can be designed by professionals, who then instruct amateurs on tips on how to perform particular parts of the mission, comparable to information assortment? Are there specific items or advantages of co-creation? Are there specific challenges or downsides? Below what circumstances is co-creation probably to achieve success?
  • Epistemic variety: Are there advantages of epistemic or cognitive variety in group science contexts? What are they? What buildings and preparations make these advantages roughly assessible?
  • Analysis ethics: What moral considerations come up within the context of group science? What buildings and preparations can handle these considerations?

Solutions to those types of questions are, it seems, instantly related to key concepts in social epistemology. One such thought is the controversial “variety trumps means” theorem. Extra exactly, the concept is {that a} group of epistemically various brokers can outperform a gaggle of extra homogenous brokers, even when this latter group has experience related to the duty in query (Hong and Web page 2004). Philosophers and social scientists have investigated the declare that variety trumps means utilizing agent-based fashions, and Hong and Web page’s mannequin has been the locus of a full of life debate for practically 20 years. However consider the additional insights about this concept that we’d acquire from group science. We’d determine additional advantages of epistemic variety, or we’d uncover specific situations that promote or detract from the advantages of epistemic variety. We might additionally study extra concerning the scope of the essential declare: in what types of contexts or teams ought to we count on to watch the variety trumps means phenomenon?

I’ll briefly point out one additional instance, the concept science should be extra democratic. Typical defenses of this concept declare that democratizing science will make scientific analysis align extra intently with public values, and probably even enhance the general public’s belief in science as a consequence (e.g. Douglas 2005; Kitcher 2011). Whether or not this protection succeeds is dependent upon the main points of specific democratization proposals, lots of which could be modeled as group science tasks with completely different sorts of buildings. Utilizing such tasks as a mannequin would enable researchers to probe whether or not the hypothesized advantages of democratizing science materialize, and in that case, below what sorts of preparations.

Because the profile of group science continues to develop, the explanations for philosophers to have interaction with this technique change into an increasing number of compelling. It is a mannequin for doing science that’s creating, altering, and gaining affect as a analysis technique and as a manner of organizing information manufacturing. Not solely can philosophers assist to craft epistemic and moral greatest practices for doing group science, and we are able to generate insights about core concepts in social epistemology on the identical time.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Commentary

Catherine Kendig
___________

Who’s a scientist and the way will we resolve who qualifies as one and who doesn’t? Whereas the English time period ‘scientist’ was certainly dubbed by William Whewell to explain Mary Somerville, there certainly should have been many who match the outline nicely earlier than its first use in English. Aristotle, aka, the ‘father of biology’ ‘the grandfather of zoology’ and the ‘godfather of embryology’ might sound a pure selection on which to confer retrospective scientist standing. After all, Aristotle’s ontology of formal, last, materials and environment friendly causes which he used to grasp these fields of pure philosophy lie outdoors of what’s presently understood to be institutionally accepted science. If not Aristotle, maybe Galileo, given his give attention to experiments and remark in physics like these specified by Two New Sciences (1638), or maybe Felice Fontana who carried out in depth and repeated experiments with toxic snakes and venom detailed in his Treatise on the Venom of the Viper (1782). At the least one factor that is likely to be a typical attribute of these people, communities of practitioners, or analysis teams we’d have known as scientists had the identify been in use again within the 17th and 18th century, is likely to be one who repeats and retests experiments. To be cautious, we’d simply say that retesting experiments is an exercise that scientists carry out. Insofar as one is performing this exercise, one is a minimum of appearing like a scientist, even when we’d not need to say that they’re embodying what it means to be a scientist always—as an illustration, when they’re ordering pizza—however after all the identical is also mentioned of actual card-carrying scientists as nicely.

In some respects, and as Karen Kovaka factors out, a scientist is somebody who practices science, who engages within the actions of science analysis, and is a part of a community or group of researchers. This deliberately open-textured definition would come with the large-scale novice tasks dedicated to biogeographical birdwatching in addition to many different group science tasks. In these, individuals carry out science however in a manner completely different from those that carry out science institutionally. Group science gives a mode of science with completely different cultural values, completely different targets, and completely different epistemic objects from these inside institutionalized science (Mahr and Dickel 2019).

Kovaka rightly factors out that in the case of its look in philosophy of science discussions, group science is normally that factor that’s talked about moderately than one thing that’s used within the follow of philosophizing about science. Whereas dialogue over group science as a very attention-grabbing epistemic object or course of is certainly precious, I agree together with her that it additionally gives an modern manner by means of which college students and others can assume collectively and a mode of analysis to higher perceive how teams generate information. The design and protocol she describes close to the highschool college students’ group science mission within the Galápagos Islands gives an exquisite instance of how philosophers of science can use group science tasks to look at not solely what information is generated by means of the actions of group science, but additionally—and importantly for this symposium—what are the consequences on these individuals. Her suggestion, that the designers of group science tasks think about constructing into their tasks assessments that may seize details about instructional outcomes in addition to how the beliefs and attitudes of the individuals modified because of the mission, is one which I hope shall be broadly taken up in future analysis.

What is especially attention-grabbing about Kovaka’s method is the give attention to how group science impacts the individuals who interact with it and measuring how their perspective adjustments consequently. Her use of group science as a instrument for inquiring into the cognitive science of studying takes critically a philosophy of science in follow method that facilities the epistemic merchandise of analysis, the strategies and processes by which the analysis was pursued and made, but additionally the practitioners themselves. Investigating what practitioners understand to be their function, what their attitudes are to the subject material, how they’ve modified by means of the course of the mission, and what are their beliefs about what they’ve realized and the way they’ve been incorporating (or not) the information generated by means of the mission into their worldviews have been the main focus of research inside STS and Sociology of Science, however it may possibly and also needs to be studied inside philosophy of science. Crafting experiments that take a look at hypotheses about individuals’ attitudes or their information or drafting open-ended questions or Likert scale survey gadgets might not select all the ontological commitments, beliefs, and attitudes a participant might have, however it’s a superb begin. Kovaka and her colleagues have proven that an excessive amount of information about scholar attitudes, particularly about their views of nature, could be gleaned from these information. I’d additionally add post-project interviews and reflective discussions to those information assortment strategies. These proved particularly precious following an HPS complementary science mission I deliberate the place undergraduates collected native samples of water from college ponds, described the morphology and behaviors of the organisms inside the samples, and drew and categorised the reside samples (of principally) species of water flea they discovered (Kendig 2013).

Appropriately conceived and developed group analysis tasks can be utilized to research completely different sorts of empirical claims but additionally present the means by which we are able to study how these analysis actions proceed in follow. Constructing on people who the Galápagos mission investigated, Kovaka gives additional examples of claims that might be studied by means of the usage of group science tasks, together with: epistemic rigor of group science, the design of co-created tasks, and the advantages of epistemic variety, in addition to questions regarding the democratization of science. There are after all many different claims that may be studied and socioepistemic values in follow that may be researched utilizing group science. I’ll add two additional loci of analysis:

  1. Inviting individuals: Specifically, the social negotiation processes which can be concerned in inviting individuals to be novice scientists, and contemplating the positions of energy, authority, and privilege and the way these codify the ‘professional’ –‘novice’ dichotomy on which it’s primarily based and the way these are felt by these invited.
  2. Sovereign or self-governed collective analysis: Analysis pursued in group however that which has not been invited or has actively been ‘uninvited’. Analysis information of this sort has been mentioned inside ethnobiology, Indigenous science research and the philosophy thereof and gives one other route into discussions of each group science in addition to the function ontologies and values play in information era and information sharing.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

References

___________

Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific information and angle change: The affect of a citizen science mission. Worldwide Journal of Science Training, 27(9), 1099–1121.

Crall, A. W., Jordan, R., Holfelder, Okay., Newman, G. J., Graham, J., & Waller, D. M. (2013). The impacts of an invasive species citizen science coaching program on participant attitudes, conduct, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 745–764.

Douglas, H. (2005). Inserting the general public into science. In Democratization of experience? (pp. 153-169). Springer, Dordrecht.

Elliott, Okay. C., & Rosenberg, J. (2019). Philosophical foundations for citizen science. Citizen Science: Concept and Apply4(1).

Fortmann, L. (Ed.). (2008). Participatory analysis in conservation and rural livelihoods: Doing science collectively. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hong, L., & Web page, S. E. (2004). Teams of various downside solvers can outperform teams of high-ability downside solvers. Proceedings of the Nationwide Academy of Sciences101(46), 16385-16389.

Kendig, C. 2013. Integrating Historical past and Philosophy of the Life Sciences in Apply to Improve Science Training: Swammerdam’s Historia Insectorum Generalis and the case of the water flea. Science & Training 22(8): 1939-1961.

Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Prometheus Books.

Mahr, D., Dickel, S.2019. Citizen science past invited participation: nineteenth century novice naturalists, epistemic autonomy, and massive information approaches avant la letter. Historical past and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 41(4).

Walsh, J. T., Kovaka, Okay., Vaca, E., Weisberg, D. S., & Weisberg, M. (2020). The results of human publicity on Galápagos sea lion conduct. Wildlife Biology2020(4).

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

Recent Comments