BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Epistemic responsibility and scientific authorship - Haixin Dang (
 University of Leeds)
DTSTART:20201118T130000Z
DTEND:20201118T143000Z
UID:TALK153694@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Matt Farr
DESCRIPTION:Epistemic responsibility is a central concept in the social ep
 istemic practices of science\, but the concept has often been left unanaly
 zed. The paper reporting the mass of the Higgs boson had over 5\,000 liste
 d authors. To what extent are these authors epistemically responsible for 
 the discovery of the mass of the Higgs boson? We need to clarify the conce
 pt of epistemic responsibility which can ground our determination of who s
 hould be acknowledged or rewarded for scientific discovery and also who sh
 ould be sanctioned when a scientific claim turns out to be false or errone
 ous. Questions over epistemic responsibility in science are intimately tie
 d with issues over scientific authorship. In face of collaboration\, some 
 philosophers of science have argued that there is no responsible agent or 
 responsible author in large scientific teams (Huebner 2014\; Huebner\, Kuk
 la\, and Winsberg 2017\; and Winsberg\, Huebner\, and Kukla 2014) and othe
 rs (Wray 2006\, 2018) have argued that only a group agent can be said to b
 e responsible for collective outputs as a group author. Both of these exis
 ting accounts are inadequate for scientific practice. I argue that we ough
 t to reject both these views of scientific authorship. Instead\, I offer a
 n alternative account and show how we can coherently locate epistemic resp
 onsibility to individuals. Every collaborator will be responsible but be r
 esponsible in different senses. I argue that we ought to look for a more f
 ine-grained analysis of epistemic responsibility. There are questions abou
 t who is properly connected to the scientific claim (attributability)\, wh
 o can answer for and give reasons for a particular scientific claim (answe
 rability)\, and who should be held accountable for or praised for scientif
 ic claims (accountability). In conclusion\, I discuss how my analysis bear
  on current reforms as scientists and journal editors look for new models 
 of scientific authorship.
LOCATION:Zoom
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR