Talk:Social epistemology

message: Possible page merger: There are currently three very similar articles on wikipedia: social epistemology, sociology of knowledge, and sociology of scientific knowledge. At most there should be two, perhaps simply one with subcategories and redirects for the former pages.--Tomsega (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible merge 

message: I'm working this article over in substantial ways over the next couple of days. (I' also Peloria, by the way.) I think I've found a way to maintain the substance of the original article, while making the division in into radical/non-radical less presumptuous (or normative) and more descriptive, wedding it to the two key journals and two key figures. I think most of the people who would feel left out, don't really mind not being signature "social epistemologists". But I guess we'll find out. I think this could be an interesting exercise in social epistemology also.
--Thomas Basboll 13:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Changes 

message: I've removed Goldman from the introduction since he now constitutes a sort of POV in the main body. (When he says that SE means many different things, even this may apply only to his narrower range of interests.) Likewise, I've removed Bloor from the STS-oriented section, since he's really more an SSK type than an SE type. We may want to work both of these references back into the text, perhaps by pointing to points of contact between social epistemology and other movements. Here's the text I cut:
:As the philosopher Alvin Goldman has pointed out, "many individual writers and groups of writers have sharply divergent views on what social epistemology is or should be"1, 
:Knowledge, on this view, is better understood as a "collectively accepted system of belief"2
This leaves some clean up in the notes to be done, and we need to put together a reference list anyway.--Thomas Basboll 07:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up a bit, removed Goldman from intro, and Barnes altogether 

message: I've taken out the footnote to the "two kinds" section since it contradicts it (and we should not have footnotes to headings). I suppose it's a real question, whether Remedios (Francisr10?) is right about the three kinds. But that's something we should achieve a consensus about. My view is that at the relevant level of abstraction there are only two kinds because I don't see SP as a version of SE but a version of SSK, which is part of the back story of SE but not itself part of the development. Anyway, at this point I've taken out the footnote because it results in contradiction.--Thomas Basboll 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two or three kinds of SE?

message: Francis Remedios has contacted me by email to object to the division of SE into two, not three kinds. The disagreement is substantial enough to warrant considering the matter further, so I've taken then whole section out and put it here. With the changes in the headings, the result actually seems quite nice. We can now put a bit more about SSK and the Strong Programme into the emergence section, and flesh out the current set of problematics in a less polarized fashion. Might work.--Thomas Basboll 07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed all of "two kinds" section 

message: Actually the book does talk about social epistemology as itself a social epistemological formation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.182.147 (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Willard's book