Authority Delegation

Nicholas Overgaard, Mirka Loiselle

Abstract


In this paper, we introduce a new concept to the field of scientonomy, that of authority delegation. Authority delegation is, in essence, a type of relation between distinct scientific communities whereby one community both recognizes another as an expert on a particular topic and will accept the theories it is told by the expert community over the same topic. Importantly, authority delegation is not a new fundamental ontological category along with theory and method. We show that authority delegation is reducible to the more basic concepts of theory and method. Furthermore, we suggest that authority delegation comes in two forms: one-sided authority delegation and mutual authority delegation.

Suggested Modifications

[Sciento-2016-0003]: Accept the notion of authority delegation:

  • Authority Delegation ≡ community A is said to be delegating authority over topic x to community B iff (1) community A accepts that community B is an expert on topic x and (2) community A will accept a theory on topic x if community B says so.

[Sciento-2016-0004]: Provided that the preceding modification [Sciento-2016-0003] is accepted, accept the following notions of mutual and one-sided authority delegation, as subtypes of authority delegation: 

  • Mutual authority delegation ≡ communities A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff community A delegates authority over topic x to community B, and community B delegates authority over topic y to community A.
  • One-Sided authority delegation ≡ communities A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff community A delegates authority over topic x to community B, but community B doesn’t delegate any authority to community A. 

 


Keywords


theoretical scientonomy; authority delegation; mutual authority delegation; one-sided authority delegation; scientific community; method; theory

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bird, A. (2014). When is There a Group that Knows? Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Shift. In Lackey (Ed.) (2014), 42-63.

Brainerd, A. W. (2007). On Connoisseurship and Reason in the Authentication of Art. Prologue Press.

Durkheim, E. (1893). The Division of Labour in Society. Macmillan, 1984.

Galison, P. (1997). Image and Logic. University of Chicago Press.

Grosvenor, B. (2011). On the Importance of Connoisseurship. Fine Art Connoisseur 8, 50-52. Retrieved from http://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/1101_On_connoisseurship.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.

Illis, N. (Director). (2011, June 19). Monet (Television series episode). In Shaw, S. (Producer) Fake or Fortune? BBC Productions.

Illis, N. (Director). (2014, January 19). Édouard Vuillard (Television series episode). In Shaw, S. (Producer) Fake or Fortune? BBC Productions.

Kraus, P. (2004). The Role of the Catalogue Raisonné in the Art Market. In Spencer (Ed.) (2004), 63-71.

Lackey, J. (Ed.). (2014). Essays in Collective Epistemology. Oxford University Press.

Spencer, R. D. (Ed.). (2004). The Expert versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the Visual Arts. Oxford University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.