Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-zzvtc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T08:02:47.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Unified Model of the Division of Cognitive Labor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Rogier De Langhe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current theories of the division of cognitive labor are confined to the “context of justification,” assuming exogenous theories. But new theories are made from the same labor that is used for developing existing theories, and if none of this labor is ever allocated to create new alternatives, then scientific progress is impossible. A unified model is proposed in which theories are no longer given but a function of the division of labor in the model itself. The interactions of individuals balancing the exploitation of existing theories and the exploration of new theories results in a robust cyclical pattern.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 444 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This article is the winner of the 2009 PSA Graduate Student Essay Award.

References

Arthur, Brian. 1989. “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events.” Economic Journal 394:116–31.Google Scholar
Brock, William, and Durlauf, Steven. 1999. “A Formal Model of Theory Choice in Science.” Economic Theory 14 (1): 113–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” Journal of Philosophy 7 (1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip 1993. The Advancement of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1984. Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2013. “The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Railsback, Steven, and Grimm, Volker. 2011. Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776/1776. Wealth of Nations. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Strevens, Michael. 2003. “The Role of the Priority Rule in Science.” Journal of Philosophy 100 (2): 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar