• Publications
  • Influence
A Role for Judgment Aggregation in Coauthoring Scientific Papers
Abstract This paper addresses the problem of judgment aggregation in science. How should scientists decide which propositions to assert in a collaborative document? We distinguish the question ofExpand
Need Not Be Accurate , Justified , or Believed by their
We argue that the main results of scientific papers may appropriately be published even if they are false, unjustified, and not believed to be true or justified by their author. To defend this claimExpand
Judgment Aggregation in Science
This paper raises the problem of judgment aggregation in science. The problem has two sides. First, how do scientists decide which propositions to assert in a collaborative document? And second, howExpand
Scientific conclusions need not be accurate, justified, or believed by their authors
We argue that the main results of scientific papers may appropriately be published even if they are false, unjustified, and not believed to be true or justified by their author. To defend this claimExpand
Do Collaborators in Science Need to Agree?
  • Haixin Dang
  • Sociology
  • Philosophy of Science
  • 1 December 2019
I argue that collaborators do not need to reach broad agreement over the justification of a consensus claim. This is because maintaining a diversity of justifiers within a scientific collaborationExpand
Epistemology of Scientific Collaboration
This dissertation primarily concerns how scientific collaborations function, how scientists know together, and how we ought to think about collective justification and collective responsibility inExpand