Changes

|Prehistory=Prior to the 20th century, epistemology of science has dealt primarily with how individuals produce knowledge.[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)|p. 4]]Interest in levels of social knowledge has been increasing after the 20th century, and the issue of the individual level is became an important issue. Many philosophers of science have come up with different beliefs regarding the individual level and the way this level affects the scientific mosaic. Locke and Hume stated that in order for an individual to have certain beliefs, he has to find them in his own experiments.[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)|p. 4]] The famous Virginia Polytechnic Institute project (VPI) was an attempt to use empirical evidences to elucidate problems in the philosophy of science, and throughout the process they focused largely on individuals. An example illustration of this is, Finocchiaro revealing certain letters of Galileo’s and extracting information about Galileo’s beliefs towards Copernicanism, in order to figure out how Galileo dealt with the problem of appraisal. From his research written in his book, we are told that Galileo initially only partly pursued the Copernicus theory. Prior to his discovery of the telescope, and even after this, Galileo has been in contact with many important figures of the time, such as Kepler. Once the telescope was discovered, Galileo accepted the Copernican theory. Part of this was because the Copernican theory proved his assumptions to be empirically true and his theories could be used to solve problems. And thus, Finocchiaro focused on Galileo's belifs and what led him to change his beliefs in order to fit with the Copernican theory.[[CiteRef::Donovan, Laudan, and Laudan (Eds.) (1988)lp|p. 18]] Paul Feyerbend Feyerabend also focused on Galileo in his 1993 book, ''A method''''. In his writings, Feyerbend Feyerabend believed there was no method of science, and thus used the study of Galileo in order to make his case. He used Galileo, because he did not follow the supposed method of the time, but none the less nonetheless was a successful individual.. According to himFeyerebend, Galileo never wanted to replaces the natural interpretations which are inconsistent with the Copernican theories, but does not get rid of all the natural interpretations, but instead he . Instead Galileo wanted to keep only what was relevant. Feyerband Feyerabend tells us that Galileo believes there should be an ‘argument from observation’ because one should be able to explain and justify what has occurred in his results, and not only give ad hoc explanations. During the time Galileo proposed these arguments, the main method accepted view was the Aristotelian methodthat things are true by nature, and therefore thus his explanation contradicted these arguments were contradicting the current accepted views. According to Feyerband, this gave Galileo trouble with the church. The key feature here is that despite church’s efforts to prevent these arguments from happening, Galileo succeeded at implying them in the mosaic, and thus proves once more that we can govern changes at the individual level. [[CiteRef::Feyerband Feyerabend (1993)lpp|pp. 77-147]]

Other figures in the scientific change do not necessarily focus on individuals, but instead they theorize certain mechanisms which can apply to the individual level. One such example is pluralism, which is defined as ‘ a degree of sociality describing scientific epistemology, and which embraces the variety of approaches individuals take in science’. Mitchell’s 2002 and 2009 articles embrace this concept. He argues that in order to fulfill the goal of the scientific change, one should not focus on a unifying theory, but instead focus on the multiple theories from individual scientists. These theories can be seen as different perspectives of the same occurring phenomenon, and thus can provide different answers about a problem. Giere’s 2006 paper supports Mitchell’s point in a color vision metaphor. Giere states that as people view the world through different eyes, and thus different perspectives, scientists perceive the world around us differently as well. This is helpful because it allows us to understand the world from different angles, and thus provides us with more answers.[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)lpp|pp. 16-17]]

Lastly, Alexander Bird argues in his 2010 paper that cognitive labor is a representation of the individual level. In his paper, Bird mentions how the scientific knowledge that a community has comes from the individual scientists, and therefore emphasizes the collectiveness of knowledge. He argues that knowledge comes from the individual’s perspectives and reasoning, and it results in what we call a community. [[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)lp|p. 18]]