For a long time, emotions were seen as incompatible with rationality and objectivity of science, and so were a marginal topic in the philosophy of science. This trend has changed progressively since it was determined that objectivity is much linked to social factors while rationality can't do without emotions. As a result, emotions are now slowly finding their way into our understanding of what science is. Here, I make an overview of some aspects of science where emotions and scientific reasoning seem to come into tight contact. For my survey, I will consider such themes as scientific motivation, scientific evaluations, scientific explanations, scientific understanding, scientific imagination, and coherence in science. Using these examples, I discuss the epistemic role of emotions in scientific progress. In conclusion, I advocate for a nuanced view of emotions in science as values that contribute to both epistemic and humanistic dimensions of science.
AndersonElizabeth.2004. “Uses of Value Judgments in Science: A General Argument, with Lessons from a Case Study of Feminist Research on Divorce. ” Hypatia 19 (1): 1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2004.tb01266.x
2.
AndersonCraig, DixsonDante, MonroyMaria, and KeltnerDacher. 2020. “Are Awe-Prone People More Curious? The Relationship Between Dispositional Awe, Curiosity, and Academic Outcomes. ” Journal of Personality 88 (4): 762–779. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12524.
3.
ArcangeliMargherita.2010. “
Imagination in Thought Experimentation: Sketching a Cognitive Approach to Thought Experiments. ” In Model-Based Reasoning in Science and Technology: Abduction, Logic, and Computational Discovery , edited by MagnaniLorenzo, CarnielliWalter, and PizziClaudio, 571–587. Studies in Computational Intelligence.
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15223-8_32.
4.
ArcangeliMargherita.2021. “
Narratives and Thought Experiments: Restoring the Role of Imagination. ” In Epistemic Uses of Imagination , edited by BaduraChristopher, and KindAmy, 183–201. Routledge.
5.
ArcangeliMargherita, and DokicJérôme. 2020. “
A Plea for the Sublime in Science. ” In The Aesthetics of Science , edited by IvanovaMilena, and FrenchSteven, 104–124. Routledge.
6.
AufrechtMonica.2017. “Reichenbach Falls—And Rises? Reconstructing the Discovery/Justification Distinction. ” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 31 (2): 151–176. doi: 10.1080/02698595.2018.1424760.
7.
BarberousseAnouk, and LudwigPascal. 2009. “
Models as Fictions. ” In Fictions in Science. Philosophical Essays in Modeling and Idealizations , edited by SuárezMauricio, 56–73. Routledge. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00775589.
8.
BaumbergerChristoph, BeisbartClaus, and BrunGeorg. 2017. “
What Is Understanding? An Overview of Recent Debates in Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. ” In Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science , edited by GrimmStephen, BaumbergerChristoph, and AmmonSabine, 1–34. Routledge.
9.
BeattyJohn.2006. “ Replaying Life's Tape”. The Journal of Philosophy 103 (7): 336–62. doi: 10.2307/20619950.
10.
BeattyJohn.2016. “ What Are Narratives Good For?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 58 (August): 33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.12.016.
BradyMichael S.2009. “
Curiosity and the Value of Truth. ” In Epistemic Value , edited by HaddockAdrian, MillarAlan, and PritchardDuncan, 1st ed.,
265–283. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231188.003.0013.
13.
BreitenbachAngela.2020. “One Imagination in Experiences of Beauty and Achievements of Understanding. ” The British Journal of Aesthetics 60 (1): 71–88. doi: 10.1093/aesthj/ayz048.
14.
CandiottoLaura.2019. “Epistemic Emotions: The Case of Wonder. ” Revista de Filosofia Aurora 31 (Dec), doi: 10.7213/1980-5934.31.054.DS11.
15.
CandiottoLaura.2023. “Emotions in Knowledge Production”.
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Critical Perspectives on Science (SI).
16.
CartwrightNancy.1983. How the Laws of Physics Lie . Clarendon Press.
17.
CurrieAdrian.2017. “From Models-as-Fictions to Models-as-Tools. ” Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 4 (27), doi: 10.3998/ergo.12405314.0004.027.
18.
CurrieAdrian.2018. “The Argument from Surprise. ” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48 (5): 639–661. doi: 10.1080/00455091.2017.1368860.
19.
CurrieAdrian.2019. “Existential Risk, Creativity & Well-Adapted Science. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 76 (Aug.): 39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2018.09.008.
20.
CurrieAdrian.2021. “Epistemic Engagement, Aesthetic Value & Scientific Practice. ” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (Apr) , doi: 10.1086/714802.
21.
CurrieAdrian, and SterelnyKim. 2017. “In Defence of Story-Telling. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 62 (Apr.): 14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.003.
22.
DastonLorraine, and GalisonPeter. 2010. Objectivity . New York: Zone Books.
23.
DaviesDavid.2007. “Thought Experiments and Fictional Narratives. ” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1): 29–45. doi: 10.5840/croatjphil20077129.
De RegtHenk.2017. Understanding Scientific Understanding . New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
De RegtHenk, and DieksDennis. 2005. “A Contextual Approach to Scientific Understanding. ” Synthese 144 (1): 137–170. doi: 10.1007/s11229-005-5000-4
27.
ElginCatherine.2007a. “
Emotion and Understanding. ” In Epistemology and Emotions , edited by BrunGeorg, DoğuoğluUlvi, and KuenzleDominique, 33–50. London: Ashgate.
28.
ElginCatherine.2007b. “Understanding and the Facts. ” Philosophical Studies 132 (1): 33–42. doi: 10.1007/s11098-006-9054-z.
29.
ElginCatherine.2017. True Enough . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
FehigeYiftach, and StuartMichael T.. 2014. “On the Origins of the Philosophy of Thought Experiments: The Forerun. ” Perspectives on Science 22 (2): 179–220. doi: 10.1162/POSC_a_00127.
31.
FrenchSteven, and MurphyAlice. 2021. “The Value of Surprise in Science. ” Erkenntnis (Jul) , 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s10670-021-00410-z.
32.
Godfrey-SmithPeter.2009. “Models and Fictions in Science. ” Philosophical Studies 143 (1): 101–116. doi: 10.1007/s11098-008-9313-2.
33.
GopnikAlison.2000. “
Explanation as Orgasm and the Drive for Causal Understanding: The Evolution, Function and Phenomenology of the Theory-Formation System. ” In Cognition and Explanation , edited by KeilFrank C., and WilsonRobert A., 299–323. MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/2930.001.0001.
34.
GottliebSara, KeltnerDacher, and LombrozoTania. 2018. “Awe as a Scientific Emotion. ” Cognitive Science 42 (6): 2081–2094. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12648.
35.
GrecoJohn.2000. “Two Kinds of Intellectual Virtue. ” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (1): 179–184. doi: 10.2307/2653438.
36.
GrimmStephen.2009. “
Reliability and the Sense of Understanding. ” In Scientific Understanding , edited by de RegtHenk, LeonelliSabina, and EignerKai, 83–99. University of Pittsburgh Press. doi: 10.2307/j.ctt9qh59s.8.
37.
GrimmStephen.2016. “
Understanding and Transparency. ” In Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science , edited by GrimmStephen, BaumbergerChristoph, and AmmonSabine, 212–229. Routledge.
38.
HannonMichael.2020. “Recent Work in the Epistemology of Understanding. ” American Philosophical Quarterly 58 (Jan.), doi: 10.2307/48616060.
HookwayChristopher.1998. “Doubt: Affective States and the Regulation of Inquiry. ” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24: 203–225. doi: 10.1080/00455091.1998.10717500.
41.
IchikawaJonathan, and JarvisBenjamin. 2009. “Thought-Experiment Intuitions and Truth in Fiction. ” Philosophical Studies 142 (2): 221–246. doi: 10.1007/s11098-007-9184-y.
IvanovaMilena.2020. “
Beauty, Truth and Understanding. ” In The Aesthetics of Science , edited by IvanovaMilena, and FrenchSteven, 86–103. Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429030284-5.
45.
IvanovaMilena.2022. “What is a Beautiful Experiment?”
Erkenntnis
(Jan.). doi: 10.1007/s10670-021-00509-3.
46.
IvanovaMilena, and MurphyAlice, eds. 2023. The Aesthetics of Scientific Experiments . New York: Routledge.
47.
JaggarAlison M.1989. “Love and Knowledge: Emotion in Feminist Epistemology. ” Inquiry 32 (2): 151–176. doi: 10.1080/00201748908602185.
48.
JanackMarianne.2002. “Dilemmas of Objectivity. ” Social Epistemology 16 (3): 267–281. doi: 10.1080/0269172022000025624.
49.
KampourakisKostas, and UllerTobias, eds. 2020.
Philosophy of Science for Biologists . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108648981.
50.
KeilFrank C.2006. “Explanation and Understanding. ” Annual Review of Psychology 57: 227–254. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100.
51.
KhalifaKareem.2016. “
Must Understanding Be Coherent?
” In Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and Philosophy of Science , edited by GrimmStephen, BaumbergerChristoph, and AmmonSabine, 139–164. Cambridge: Routledge.
52.
KhalifaKareem.2017. Understanding, Explanation, and Scientific Knowledge . Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108164276.
53.
KinbergOri, and LevyArnon. 2022. “The Epistemic Imagination Revisited. ” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
00: 1–18. doi: 10.1111/phpr.12909.
54.
KindAmy, and KungPeter. 2016. Knowledge Through Imagination, First Edition . Oxford, United Kingdom
: Oxford University Press.
55.
KochanJeff.2013. “Subjectivity and Emotion in Scientific Research. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3): 354–362. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.05.003.
56.
KoskinenInkeri.2020. “Defending a Risk Account of Scientific Objectivity. ” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 71 (4): 1187–1207. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axy053.
57.
KossoPeter.2002. “The Omniscienter: Beauty and Scientific Understanding. ” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (1): 39–48. doi: 10.1080/02698590120118819.
58.
KouranyJanet A.2010. Philosophy of Science After Feminism . New York: Oxford University Press.
59.
KrankeNina.2022. “
The Trees’ Tale: Filigreed Phylogenetic Trees and Integrated Narratives. ” In Narrative Science: Reasoning, Representing and Knowing Since 1800 , edited by BerryDominic J., HajekKim M., and MorganMary S., 206–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781009004329.011.
60.
KuhnThomas.1977. “
Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice. ” In The Essential Tension—Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change , edited by KuhnThomas, 321–339. The University of Chicago Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/KUHOVJ.
61.
KuhnThomas.2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition. Edited by Ian Hacking . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62.
KvanvigJonathan.2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding . Cambridge Studies in Philosophy.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
63.
LeonelliSabina.2013. “Integrating Data to Acquire New Knowledge: Three Modes of Integration in Plant Science. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (4, Part A): 503–514. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.03.020.
64.
LeonelliSabina.2015. “What Counts as Scientific Data? A Relational Framework. ” Philosophy of Science 82 (5): 810–821. doi: 10.1086/684083.
65.
LeonelliSabina.2019. “Data — from Objects to Assets. ” Nature 574 (7778): 317–320. doi: 10.1038/d41586-019-03062-w.
66.
LevyArnon, and BechtelWilliam. 2013. “Abstraction and the Organization of Mechanisms. ” Philosophy of Science 80 (2): 241–261. doi: 10.1086/670300.
67.
LevyArnon, and Godfrey-SmithPeter. 2019. The Scientific Imagination . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68.
LiptonPeter.2009. “
Understanding Without Explanation. ” In Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives , edited by de RegtHenk, LeonelliSabina, and EignerKai, 43–63. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
LonginoHelen.2004. “
How Values Can Be Good for Science. ” In Science, Values, and Objectivity , edited by MachamerPeter, and WoltersGereon, 127–142. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
71.
LonginoHelen, and LennonKathleen. 1997. “Feminist Epistemology as a Local Epistemology. ” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 71: 19–54. doi: 10.1111/1467-8349.00017
72.
MagnaniLorenzo, and NersessianNancy. 2002. Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, Values . New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
73.
MagnaniLorenzo, NersessianNancy, and ThagardPaul. 1999. Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery . New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
74.
MajeedRaamy.2019. “
What Can Information Encapsulation Tell Us About Emotional Rationality?
” In The Value of Emotions for Knowledge , edited by CandiottoLaura, 51–69. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15667-1_3.
75.
McAllisterJames W.1996. Beauty and Revolution in Science . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
76.
MeynellLetitia.2014. “Imagination and Insight: A New Acount of the Content of Thought Experiments. ” Synthese 191 (17): 4149–4168. doi: 10.1007/s11229-014-0519-x
77.
MeynellLetitia.2017. “
Images and Imagination in Thought Experiments. ” In The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments , edited by StuartMichael, FehigeYiftach, and BrownJames, 498–511. London: Routledge.
78.
MorganMary.2004. “Imagination and Imaging in Economic Model Building. ” Philosophy of Science 71 (Dec): 753–766. doi: 10.1086/426769.
79.
MorganMary.2005. “Experiments Versus Models: New Phenomena, Inference and Surprise. ” Journal of Economic Methodology 12 (2): 317–329. doi: 10.1080/13501780500086313.
80.
MorganMary.2017. “Narrative Ordering and Explanation. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 62 (Apr.): 86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.006.
MorganMary, and MorrisonMargaret, eds. 1999. Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science . Ideas in Context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511660108.
83.
MorganMary, and WiseNorton. 2017. “Narrative Science and Narrative Knowing. Introduction to Special Issue on Narrative Science. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, SI: Narrative in Science 62 (April): 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.005.
84.
MortonAdam.2010. “
Epistemic Emotions. ” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Emotion , edited by GoldiePeter, 385–399. New York: Oxford University Press.
85.
MurphyAlice.2020a. “
The Aesthetic and Literary Qualities of Scientific Thought Experiments. ” In The Aesthetics of Science , edited by IvanovaMilena, and FrenchSteven, 146–166. Routledge.
86.
MurphyAlice.2020b. “Towards a Pluralist Account of the Imagination in Science. ” Philosophy of Science 87 (5): 957–967. doi: 10.1086/710620.
MurphyAlice.2023. “Form and Content: A Defence of Aesthetic Value in Science. ” Philosophy of Science (Feb) , 1–26. doi: 10.1017/psa.2023.46.
89.
NersessianNancy.2009. “
Conceptual Change: Creativity, Cognition, and Culture. ” In Models of Discovery and Creativity , edited by MeheusJoke, and NicklesThomas, 127–166. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3421-2_8.
90.
NersessianNancy.2010. Creating Scientific Concepts . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
91.
NersessianNancy.2022. Interdisciplinarity in the Making: Models and Methods in Frontier Science . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
92.
NguyenThi.2022. “
Playfulness Versus Epistemic Traps. ” In Social Virtue Epistemology , edited by AlfanoMark, KleinColin, and de RidderJeroen, 269–290. Routledge.
93.
NortonJohn.2004. “On Thought Experiments: Is There More to the Argument. ” Philosophy of Science 71 (5): 1139–1151. doi: 10.1086/425238.
94.
PankseppJaak.2004. Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
95.
PetersEllen.2006. “
The Functions of Affect in the Construction of Preferences. ” In The Construction of Preference , edited by LichtensteinSarah, and SlovicPaul, 454–463. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
96.
PotochnikAngela.2017. Idealization and the Aims of Science . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
97.
RheinbergerHans-Jörg.2021. “
On the Narrative Order of Experimentation. ” In Narratives and Comparisons: Adversaries or Allies in Understanding Science? , edited by CarrierMartin, MertensRebecca, and ReinhardtCarsten, 85–98. Verlag. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv2f9xs9f.6.
98.
RitsonSophie.2020. “Probing Novelty at the LHC: Heuristic Appraisal of Disruptive Experimentation. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 69 (Feb.): 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2019.08.002.
99.
RosalesAlirio.2017. “Theories That Narrate the World: Ronald A. Fisher”s Mass Selection and Sewall Wright's Shifting Balance. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 62 (Apr.): 22–30. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.03.007.
100.
RouseJoseph.1990. “The Narrative Reconstruction of Science. ” Inquiry 33 (2): 179–196. doi: 10.1080/00201749008602217.
101.
RouseJoseph.2018. “
Narrative Reconstruction, Epistemic Significance, and the Temporality of Scientific Practices”. Chap. 6. ” In Narrative Reconstruction, Epistemic Significance, and the Temporality of Scientific Practices , 158–178. Cornell University Press. doi: 10.7591/9781501718625-008.
SchickoreJutta, and SteinleFriedrich. 2006. “
Introduction: Revisiting the Context Distinction. ” In Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , edited by SchickoreJutta, and SteinleFriedrich, 7–19. Archimedes.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi: 10.1007/1-4020-4251-5_1.
104.
SiwickiKathleen, HardinPaul, and PriceJeffrey. 2018. “Reflections on Contributing to “Big Discoveries” About the Fly Clock: Our Fortunate Paths as Post-Docs with 2017 Nobel Laureates Jeff Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Mike Young. ” Neurobiology of Sleep and Circadian Rhythms 5 (Mar,): 58–67. doi: 10.1016/j.nbscr.2018.02.004.
De. SousaRonald1990. The Rationality of Emotion . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
107.
StuartMichael.2016. “Taming Theory with Thought Experiments: Understanding and Scientific Progress. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 58 (Aug.): 24–33. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.04.002.
108.
StuartMichael.2017. “Imagination: A Sine Qua Non of Science. ” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 17 (49): 9–32.
109.
StuartMichael.2018. “ How Thought Experiments Increase Understanding”. In The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments , edited by StuartMichael T., FehigeYiftach, and Robert BrownJames, 526–44. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315175027.
110.
StuartMichael.2019a. “Everyday Scientific Imagination: A Qualitative Study of the Uses, Norms, and Pedagogy of Imagination in Science. ” Science & Education 28 (6–7): 711–730. doi: 10.1007/s11191-019-00067-9.
111.
StuartMichael.2019b. “Towards a Dual Process Epistemology of Imagination. ” Synthese 198 (3): 1329–1350. doi: 10.1007/s11229-019-02116-w.
112.
StuartMichael.2020a. “The Productive Anarchy of Scientific Imagination. ” Philosophy of Science 87 (5): 968–978. doi: 10.1086/710629.
113.
StuartMichael.2020b. “The Material Theory of Induction and the Epistemology of Thought Experiments. ” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 83 (Oct.): 17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2020.03.005.
114.
SullivanEmily, and KhalifaKareem. 2019. “Idealizations and Understanding: Much Ado About Nothing?
” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (4): 673–689. doi: 10.1080/00048402.2018.1564337.
115.
SwaimDaniel.2019. “The Roles of Possibility and Mechanism in Narrative Explanation. ” Philosophy of Science 86 (5): 858–868. doi: 10.1086/705528.
SzigetiAndrás.2022. “The Heuristics Theory of Emotions and Moderate Rationalism. ” Philosophical Psychology , 1–24. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2022.2094232.
118.
ThagardPaul.2002. “
The Passionate Scientist: Emotion in Scientific Cognition. ” In The Cognitive Basis of Science , edited by SiegalMichael, CarruthersPeter, and StichStephen, 235–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613517.013.
119.
ThagardPaul.2006. Hot Thought: Mechanisms and Applications of Emotional Cognition . 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass: A Bradford Book.
120.
ThagardPaul.2012. “Coherence: The Price Is Right. ” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1): 42–49. doi: 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2011.00091.x.
121.
ThagardPaul, and StewartTerrence. 2011. “The AHA! Experience: Creativity Through Emergent Binding in Neural Networks. ” Cognitive Science 35 (1): 1–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01142.x.
122.
ToonAdam.2016. ““
Imagination in Scientific Modeling
”.” In The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Imagination , edited by KindAmy, 451–462. New York: Routledge.
123.
TroutJ D.2002. “Scientific Explanation And The Sense Of Understanding. ” Philosophy of Science 69 (2): 212–233. doi: 10.1086/341050.
124.
TroutJ. D.2007. “The Psychology of Scientific Explanation. ” Philosophy Compass 2 (3): 564–591. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00081.x.
WilléeArne.2019. “
Thought Experiments as a Narrative Genre. ” In Literature as Thought Experiment?: Perspectives from Philosophy and Literary Studies , edited by BornmüllerMathis, FranzenFalk, and LessauJohannes, 83–96. Wilhelm Fink. doi: 10.30965/9783846764299_008.
WolpertLewis, and RichardsAlison. 1988. A Passion for Science . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
129.
WolpertLewis, and RichardsAlison. 1997. Passionate Minds: The Inner World of Scientists . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
130.
WrightJack.2018. “Rescuing Objectivity: A Contextualist Proposal. ” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 48 (4): 385–406. doi: 10.1177/0048393118767089.
131.
YlikoskiPetri.2009. “
The Illusion of Depth of Understanding in Science. ” In Scientific Understanding , edited by de RegtHenk W., LeonelliSabina, and EignerKai, 100–119. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh press.
132.
ZagzebskiLinda.1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge . New York: Cambridge University Press.
133.
ZagzebskiLinda.2001. “
Recovering Understanding. ” In Knowledge, Truth, and Duty: Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue , edited by SteupMatthias. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0195128923.003.0015.
134.
ZollmanKevin.2010. “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity. ” Erkenntnis 72 (1): 17–35. doi: 10.1007/s10670-009-9194-6.
