Abstract:Philosophers of science have argued that epistemic diversity is an asset for the production of scientific knowledge, guarding against the effects of biases, among other advantages. The growing privatization of scientific research, on the contrary, has raised important concerns for philosophers of science, especially with respect to the growing sources of biases in research that it seems to promote. Recently, Holman and Bruner (2017) have shown, using a modified version of Zollman (2010) social network model, that an industrial selection bias can emerge in a scientific community, without corrupting any individual scientist, if the community is epistemically diverse. In this paper, we examine the strength of industrial selection using a reinforcement learning model, which simulates the process of industrial decision-making when allocating funding to scientific projects. Contrary to Holman and Bruner's model, in which the probability of success of the agents when performing an action is given a priori, in our model the industry learns about the success rate of individual scientists and updates the probability of success on each round. The results of our simulations show that even without previous knowledge of the probability of success of an individual scientist, the industry is still able to disrupt scientific consensus. In fact, the more epistemically diverse the scientific community, the easier it is for the industry to move scientific consensus to the opposite conclusion. Interestingly, our model also shows that having a random funding agent seems to effectively counteract industrial selection bias. Accordingly, we consider the random allocation of funding for research projects as a strategy to counteract industrial selection bias, avoiding commercial exploitation of epistemically diverse communities.

Epistemic Injustice and Scientific Knowledge Distribution

Epistemic injustice and data science technologies

Knowledge Transmission and Epistemic Injustice Chinese Full Text

Epistemic Diversity and Epistemic Advantage: A Comparison of Two Causal Theories in Feminist Epistemology

Knowledge Justice and Rawls's Theory of Justice

Whose Knowledge is Valued?: Epistemic Injustice in CSCW Applications

Epistemic Injustice and Legitimacy in U.S. Doctoral Education: A Systematic Review of Literature

Epistemic Injustice in Generative AI

Epistemic injustice in planning: a framework for identifying degrees of harm

Epistemic diversity and industrial selection bias

Gender disparities in the dissemination and acquisition of scientific knowledge

Epistemic exclusion: A theory for understanding racism in faculty research evaluations.

Global health justice: epistemic theory and pandemic practice

Epistemic (in)justice in English Medium Instruction: Transnational Teachers' and Students' Negotiation of Knowledge Participation Through Translanguaging

Epistemic Diversity and the Question of Lingua Franca in Science and Philosophy

Interdisciplinary Cases and Disciplinary Knowledge

Open Science and Epistemic Diversity: Friends or Foes?

Epistemic Inclusion as the Key to Benefiting from Cognitive Diversity in Science

Epistemic Justice as a "New Normal?" Interrogating the Contributions of Communities of Practice to Decolonization of Knowledge

The Impact and Enlightenment of Science and Technology on Social Fairness

Epistemic injustice and neoliberal imaginations in English as a medium of instruction (EMI) policy