Social Epistemology — Steve Fuller / Serious Science

Philosopher and sociologist of science Steve Fuller on collective and individualistic nature of knowledge, elitist knowledge production, and distinctive features of academic knowledge

'I think there’s a general recognition that knowledge is something that in the first instance is produced by a relatively elite group of people. Then the question becomes how are those elite made accountable to a larger society that depends upon the knowledge that those elite produce.'
Steve Fuller, Auguste Comte Chair in Social Epistemology in the Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Fellow of the UK Academy of Social Sciences, member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts

Be the first to find out about our new videos and articles. Learn interesting facts about various topics and people. Discover the answers to the big questions. Be in the know.

Follow us:

[ridethecurve]

Hearing this reminds me that I am no philosopher, nor will I ever be. I haven't been able to crack open this side of my brain, I guess.

[OnyxMoon]

how are these people "elite" made accountable in a larger society.... what to do about the knowledge we've gain the the area of expertise? There should be accountability but how can we be accountable for our knowledge when society doesn't HELP us put our knowledge into practice. We've had to figure it all out on an individual level, and there are limited amount of slots of jobs. we need money to exist.

[ujean]

This sounds all too American in it's tribalism (e.g. Philosophy knows how to approach the problem but Sociology doesn't). Hundreds (thousands?) of books pre-date 1988 as a timeline for serious and directed approaches to the Social Epistemology from both Philosophy and Sociology. If, however, you are willing to reject all work that lies outside the ivory towers of the classical standard repertoire of philosophy, your statements may be valid in a narrow myopic sort of way.

[RottenTrashBoy]

This guy is, all in all, just an activist. Science shouldn't be favoristic, it is there to accurately report the real world close enough for us to understand. Throwing goals around just throws the math off due to bias, unless it's to be controlled.

[Hallands.]

That's just inordinately silly, making an issue of how our present knowledge may affect "future thinking"!

1. You can't know. Nobody can.

2. You shouldn't attempt to interfere in any way, even if you could.

3. We do not presently posses much more than a little, scattered and highly specialized know-how and some flimsy theories. Our mainstream world view is incoherent and predominantly delusional.

4. Hopefully, future generations will transcend the current obsession with mind and develop wisdom. They'll need it.

5. Everyone is clamoring for attention, presumably to get funding, but for what? Does it matter – to you?

Shouldn't we first figure out what we want and tell our leaders? After finding some who listen, obviously...

6. Before you worry about future thinking, try to determine what's driving thinking today. It seems to be "profit".

Profit doesn't require any kind of deep understanding, mostly just gall, deception and ruthlessness.