{
  "version": "0.9",
  "date": "2026-09-26",
  "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft; no scholarly reviewer assigned",
  "guides": {
    "paradigm": {
      "definition": "In Kuhn’s account, paradigms are exemplary achievements guiding research; the term also has a broader use for a community’s shared commitments.",
      "definitionCitation": {
        "source": "bird-kuhn",
        "locator": "§3, “The Concept of a Paradigm”",
        "support": "Distinguishes the disciplinary matrix from paradigms as exemplary problem solutions."
      },
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "The core idea",
            "text": "Bird’s account of Kuhn explains how accepted problem solutions provide models for further research. A scientific community learns ways of identifying and solving problems through those exemplars.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "bird-kuhn",
                "locator": "§3, “The Concept of a Paradigm”",
                "support": "Distinguishes the disciplinary matrix from paradigms as exemplary problem solutions."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Two uses of the term",
            "text": "The disciplinary matrix includes theories, instruments, values, and assumptions. Paradigms in the narrower sense are exemplary research achievements within that matrix; these meanings should not be collapsed.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "bird-kuhn",
                "locator": "§3, “The Concept of a Paradigm”",
                "support": "Distinguishes the disciplinary matrix from paradigms as exemplary problem solutions."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "Interpretation and disagreement",
            "text": "Bird describes disputes about incommensurability and scientific rationality. Kuhn’s account of comparison between frameworks does not simply say that evidence is irrelevant.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "bird-kuhn",
                "locator": "§§4 and 7.2, incommensurability",
                "support": "Discusses different meanings of incommensurability and objections about rational comparison."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Editorial perspective",
            "text": "This entry presents Kuhn through a scholarly reference account. It is an introduction to a contested position, not a consensus model of every scientific field.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "example": {
        "title": "Example: weighing in chemistry",
        "text": "Bird gives Lavoisier’s use of a chemical balance—a weighing instrument—as an example. What makes this a paradigm is not the instrument alone, but its use in solving a scientific problem. Other researchers can take that successful solution as a model: it suggests what to measure and how to investigate similar problems. Here, an “exemplar” means a model of successful scientific work.",
        "kind": "paraphrase",
        "citations": [
          {
            "source": "bird-kuhn",
            "locator": "§3, examples of paradigms and the three functions of exemplars",
            "support": "Bird identifies Lavoisier’s application of the balance and explains that exemplars suggest new problems, approaches to solving them, and standards for assessing solutions."
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "bird-kuhn",
        "locator": "§3, then §7",
        "guidance": "The concept section distinguishes meanings; the later section introduces objections and influence."
      },
      "version": "0.3",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.3",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced the abstract invented teaching scenario with a cited chemistry example and explained the term exemplar."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.2",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Added claim citations, source locations, reading levels, and explicit editorial labels; removed exercises."
        }
      ]
    },
    "actor-network-theory": {
      "definition": "In Latour’s account, actor-network theory is a sociology of associations that traces how the social is assembled.",
      "definitionCitation": {
        "source": "latour-description",
        "locator": "Description, final paragraph",
        "support": "Latour describes his version of ANT as a science of associations."
      },
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "The core idea",
            "text": "Latour proposes investigating associations instead of assuming that a ready-made social domain explains other activities.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "latour-book",
                "locator": "Publisher abstract",
                "support": "Contrasts assembling associations with treating the social as a distinct material or domain."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "An explanatory shift",
            "text": "The publisher’s account distinguishes an assembling process from a supposed social substance. This redirects explanation toward the constituents and connections of an association.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "latour-book",
                "locator": "Publisher abstract, paragraphs 1–3",
                "support": "Explains the distinction between the process of assembling and a type of material."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "Scope of this account",
            "text": "Latour explicitly presents his own version of ANT and traces its development from science studies into other domains. This source should not stand in for all contributions to the tradition.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "latour-description",
                "locator": "Description, final paragraph",
                "support": "Latour describes his version of ANT as a science of associations."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Editorial perspective",
            "text": "For further study, comparisons with institutional or political-economic explanations would require separate sources establishing their respective arguments.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "example": {
        "title": "Illustrative example",
        "text": "A laboratory report depends on samples, people, equipment, and recording procedures. Tracing how they hold together illustrates an association; this is an invented scenario, not a case reported in the cited book.",
        "kind": "illustration",
        "citations": []
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "latour-book",
        "locator": "Introduction; author’s description also linked above",
        "guidance": "The monograph is the starting reading; this introductory draft relies on the author’s description and publisher abstract, not a full-text review."
      },
      "version": "0.2",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.2",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Added claim citations, source locations, reading levels, and explicit editorial labels; removed exercises."
        }
      ]
    },
    "co-production": {
      "definition": "In Jasanoff’s formulation, co-production concerns the simultaneous formation of knowledge and normative understandings of social order.",
      "definitionCitation": {
        "source": "jasanoff",
        "locator": "“Co-production,” opening paragraph",
        "support": "Scientific ideas and artifacts develop with representations, identities, discourses, and institutions."
      },
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "The core idea",
            "text": "Scientific beliefs and associated technologies develop together with the institutions and representations that give them practical meaning.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "jasanoff",
                "locator": "“Co-production,” opening paragraph",
                "support": "Scientific ideas and artifacts develop with representations, identities, discourses, and institutions."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Analytical scope",
            "text": "Jasanoff identifies identities, discourses, and institutions among the arrangements that develop with scientific ideas. Her formulation concerns knowing and ordering together.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "jasanoff",
                "locator": "“Co-production,” opening paragraph",
                "support": "Scientific ideas and artifacts develop with representations, identities, discourses, and institutions."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "From overview to case study",
            "text": "Jasanoff identifies Designs on Nature, on biotechnology regulation, as an extended empirical study using this approach. States of Knowledge provides the systematic framework.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "jasanoff",
                "locator": "Opening two paragraphs and key papers list",
                "support": "Identifies States of Knowledge as the framework and Designs on Nature as a case study."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Editorial distinction",
            "text": "Read this formulation in its stated STS context; do not assume that every use of the term carries the same analytical meaning.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "example": {
        "title": "Illustrative example",
        "text": "A city’s air-quality index links measurements to risk categories and official responsibilities. The imagined case illustrates studying a knowledge system and governing arrangements together.",
        "kind": "illustration",
        "citations": []
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "jasanoff",
        "locator": "Overview and linked “Ordering Knowledge, Ordering Society”",
        "guidance": "Begin with the author’s overview, then follow its chapter reference for a fuller argument."
      },
      "version": "0.2",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.2",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Added claim citations, source locations, reading levels, and explicit editorial labels; removed exercises."
        }
      ]
    },
    "situated-knowledge": {
      "definition": "For Haraway, situated knowledge connects objectivity with embodied, partial perspectives and responsibility for their limits.",
      "definitionCitation": {
        "source": "haraway",
        "locator": "pp. 581–585, discussion of vision, embodiment, and partial perspective",
        "support": "Locates feminist objectivity in embodied and accountable perspectives rather than a view outside all locations."
      },
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "The core idea",
            "text": "Haraway connects seeing and knowing with a position in the world. Objectivity requires accountability for that position, rather than pretending to see from nowhere.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "haraway",
                "locator": "pp. 581–585, discussion of vision, embodiment, and partial perspective",
                "support": "Locates feminist objectivity in embodied and accountable perspectives rather than a view outside all locations."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Partiality and accountability",
            "text": "Haraway rejects both a totalizing viewpoint and a relativism that treats all positions as equivalent. Acknowledging location is part of critical inquiry, not a substitute for it.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "haraway",
                "locator": "pp. 583–585",
                "support": "Rejects relativism and totalization and requires more than simply acknowledging partiality."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "A consequential distinction",
            "text": "Haraway’s argument does not give any social position automatic access to truth. Her discussion treats critical positioning and connections between perspectives as demanding work.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "haraway",
                "locator": "pp. 583–586",
                "support": "Discusses subjugated standpoints, critical positioning, and accountable partiality."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Editorial perspective",
            "text": "The contrast between situated objectivity and relativism is central to this reading. Applications to particular research methods need their own empirical evidence.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "example": {
        "title": "Illustrative example",
        "text": "A heat map based only on outdoor daytime sensors may miss conditions inside homes at night. This imagined example highlights how measurement choices limit what a perspective reveals.",
        "kind": "illustration",
        "citations": []
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "haraway",
        "locator": "pp. 581–586",
        "guidance": "Read the discussion of vision and objectivity in the original essay, keeping its feminist argument in view."
      },
      "version": "0.2",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.2",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Added claim citations, source locations, reading levels, and explicit editorial labels; removed exercises."
        }
      ]
    },
    "boundary-work": {
      "definition": "Gieryn uses boundary-work for attributions that distinguish science from other activities in pursuit of professional authority, resources, or autonomy.",
      "definitionCitation": {
        "source": "gieryn",
        "locator": "pp. 781–782 and 791–792",
        "support": "Analyzes attribution of characteristics to science and the professional purposes of demarcation."
      },
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "The core idea",
            "text": "Rather than finding one timeless boundary, Gieryn examines how people describe science in contrast to other activities in particular settings.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "gieryn",
                "locator": "pp. 781–782 and 791–792",
                "support": "Analyzes attribution of characteristics to science and the professional purposes of demarcation."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Professional purposes",
            "text": "Gieryn distinguishes expansion of expertise, exclusion of rivals, and protection of autonomy. The attributes assigned to science vary with these purposes and contexts.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "gieryn",
                "locator": "pp. 791–792, conclusion",
                "support": "Lists expansion, monopolization, and protection of autonomy; describes boundaries as variable and disputed."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "Method and interpretation",
            "text": "Gieryn analyzes ideological descriptions of science as rhetorical work. His conclusion treats scientific boundaries as historically changing and sometimes internally inconsistent.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "gieryn",
                "locator": "pp. 791–793, conclusion",
                "support": "Connects professional ideology and the variable attribution of characteristics to science."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Editorial distinction",
            "text": "Analyzing the use of a boundary is different from assessing the evidence for an individual scientific claim.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "example": {
        "title": "Illustrative example",
        "text": "A funding panel labels one proposal scientific and another advocacy. The imagined scenario separates the language of demarcation from its consequences for access to funding.",
        "kind": "illustration",
        "citations": []
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "gieryn",
        "locator": "pp. 781–782 and 791–793",
        "guidance": "Read the framing and conclusion, then return to the historical cases supporting the analysis."
      },
      "version": "0.2",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.2",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Added claim citations, source locations, reading levels, and explicit editorial labels; removed exercises."
        }
      ]
    },
    "interpretive-flexibility": {
      "definition": "For Pinch and Bijker, interpretive flexibility concerns variation in how technological artifacts are understood and how they are designed.",
      "definitionCitation": {
        "source": "pinch-bijker",
        "locator": "p. 421, “Interpretative Flexibility”",
        "support": "The original article explicitly includes flexibility of both interpretation and artifact design."
      },
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "The core idea",
            "text": "Different social groups can interpret an artifact differently. Pinch and Bijker connect those interpretations to alternative design possibilities.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "pinch-bijker",
                "locator": "p. 421, “Interpretative Flexibility”",
                "support": "The original article explicitly includes flexibility of both interpretation and artifact design."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Beyond opinions about a finished object",
            "text": "Their formulation concerns technological design as well as meaning. Their bicycle case illustrates how different problems and solutions enter technological development.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "pinch-bijker",
                "locator": "pp. 421–424, “Interpretative Flexibility”",
                "support": "Contrasts meanings and designs, using the bicycle and air tire as examples."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "Flexibility and closure",
            "text": "The article next examines closure mechanisms that reduce interpretative flexibility. This is a programme for investigating stabilization, not a presumption that the final design was inevitable.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "pinch-bijker",
                "locator": "pp. 424–428, “Closure and Stabilization”",
                "support": "Discusses rhetorical closure and closure by redefining the problem."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Editorial perspective",
            "text": "An application should document the relevant groups and the design alternatives, rather than infer them solely from the technology’s later success.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "example": {
        "title": "Example from the literature",
        "text": "Pinch and Bijker’s bicycle discussion connects differing interpretations of the air tire with its eventual association with speed.",
        "kind": "paraphrase",
        "citations": [
          {
            "source": "pinch-bijker",
            "locator": "pp. 424–428",
            "support": "Uses the air tire to discuss closure and redefinition of problems."
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "pinch-bijker",
        "locator": "pp. 421–428",
        "guidance": "Read interpretative flexibility together with closure and stabilization."
      },
      "version": "0.2",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.2",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Added claim citations, source locations, reading levels, and explicit editorial labels; removed exercises."
        }
      ]
    },
    "boundary-objects": {
      "definition": "For Star and Griesemer, boundary objects meet different social worlds’ local requirements while maintaining a recognizable common identity.",
      "definitionCitation": {
        "source": "star-griesemer",
        "locator": "p. 393, introduction of boundary objects",
        "support": "Objects adapt to different local requirements while retaining a common identity across social worlds."
      },
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "The core idea",
            "text": "Their museum study explains how participants can cooperate while retaining different meanings and commitments.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "star-griesemer",
                "locator": "p. 393, introduction of boundary objects",
                "support": "Objects adapt to different local requirements while retaining a common identity across social worlds."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Local flexibility and shared identity",
            "text": "The definition joins two requirements: an object can be adapted to local needs, yet remains recognizable across sites. Both are necessary to this account.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "star-griesemer",
                "locator": "p. 393, introduction of boundary objects",
                "support": "Objects adapt to different local requirements while retaining a common identity across social worlds."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "Objects and organized work",
            "text": "On the same page, the authors connect museum work to standards of collection and description before introducing boundary objects. Coordination involves organizational practices as well as shared objects.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "star-griesemer",
                "locator": "p. 393, discussion immediately preceding the definition",
                "support": "Connects collection and description standards with management of scientific work."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Editorial caution",
            "text": "Calling an item shared does not establish that it functions as a boundary object. An analysis needs evidence of its local uses and maintained common identity.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "example": {
        "title": "Example from the literature",
        "text": "The Museum of Vertebrate Zoology case connects cooperation across participants with shared objects and standardized collection practices.",
        "kind": "paraphrase",
        "citations": [
          {
            "source": "star-griesemer",
            "locator": "p. 393, introduction of boundary objects",
            "support": "Objects adapt to different local requirements while retaining a common identity across social worlds."
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "star-griesemer",
        "locator": "p. 393, then the surrounding museum case",
        "guidance": "Begin with the definition, then examine the work arrangements that give it empirical meaning."
      },
      "version": "0.2",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.2",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Added claim citations, source locations, reading levels, and explicit editorial labels; removed exercises."
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "sources": {
    "bird-kuhn": {
      "citation": "Bird, Alexander. “Thomas Kuhn.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (revised 2025).",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "latour-description": {
      "citation": "Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social (2005). Author’s description.",
      "url": "https://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/70.html",
      "type": "Author’s account",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "latour-book": {
      "citation": "Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, 2005.",
      "url": "https://academic.oup.com/book/52349",
      "type": "Scholarly monograph; publisher abstract consulted",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "jasanoff": {
      "citation": "Jasanoff, Sheila. “Co-production.” Research overview. Undated.",
      "url": "https://sheilajasanoff.org/research/co-production/",
      "type": "Author’s account",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "haraway": {
      "citation": "Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14(3), 1988, 575–599.",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066",
      "accessUrl": "https://knowledge4empowerment.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/haraway_1988_situated-knowledges.pdf",
      "type": "Original article",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "gieryn": {
      "citation": "Gieryn, Thomas F. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48(6), 1983, 781–795.",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325",
      "accessUrl": "https://www.hv.se/globalassets/dokument/forska/lina/gieryn-boundaryworkdemarcationscience-1983.pdf",
      "type": "Original article",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "pinch-bijker": {
      "citation": "Pinch, Trevor J., and Wiebe E. Bijker. “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other.” Social Studies of Science 14(3), 1984, 399–441.",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004",
      "accessUrl": "https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-social-construction-of-facts-and-artefacts-or-how-the-sociolo/",
      "type": "Original article",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "star-griesemer": {
      "citation": "Star, Susan Leigh, and James R. Griesemer. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39.” Social Studies of Science 19(3), 1989, 387–420.",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001",
      "accessUrl": "https://griesemer.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/07-star-griesemer-1989-sss19-3387-420-boundary-objects.pdf",
      "type": "Original article",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-knowledge": {
      "citation": "“The Analysis of Knowledge.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-assertion": {
      "citation": "“Assertion.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/assertion/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-observation": {
      "citation": "“Theory and Observation in Science.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-evidence": {
      "citation": "“Evidence.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-explanation": {
      "citation": "“Scientific Explanation (Fall 2025 archive).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2025/entries/scientific-explanation/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-method": {
      "citation": "“Scientific Method.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-whewell": {
      "citation": "“William Whewell.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-technology": {
      "citation": "“Philosophy of Technology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Consulted 24 September 2026.",
      "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/",
      "type": "Scholarly encyclopedia",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-research": {
      "citation": "OECD. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. OECD Publishing, 2015. Chapter 2.",
      "url": "https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en",
      "accessUrl": "https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2015/10/frascati-manual-2015_g1g57dcb/9789264239012-en.pdf",
      "type": "Institutional methodological manual; chapter 2 consulted",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-technology-history": {
      "citation": "Schatzberg, Eric. Technology: Critical History of a Concept. University of Chicago Press, 2018. Publisher’s overview consulted.",
      "url": "https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo28911204.html",
      "type": "Publisher overview of scholarly monograph",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    },
    "intro-sismondo": {
      "citation": "Sismondo, Sergio. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Preface and chapter 1, pp. 10–11.",
      "url": "https://www.wiley-vch.de/en/areas-interest/humanities-social-sciences/an-introduction-to-science-and-technology-studies-978-1-4051-8765-7",
      "type": "Scholarly textbook; cited pages consulted in scan",
      "checkedAt": "2026-09-24"
    }
  },
  "chapters": [
    {
      "slug": "introduction",
      "title": "Philosophy of Science",
      "description": "Begin with knowledge, evidence, explanation, and scientific inquiry.",
      "entries": [
        "what-is-knowledge",
        "claims-and-observations",
        "what-is-evidence",
        "explanation-and-investigation",
        "what-is-science",
        "what-is-research",
        "what-is-technology",
        "what-is-sts"
      ],
      "context": []
    }
  ],
  "introduction": {
    "what-is-knowledge": {
      "title": "Knowledge",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "On the first morning in an interdisciplinary lab, a new Information Science graduate student chooses a seat near the end of the meeting table. A slide shows the result of an earlier project: an AI model that assigns categories to research documents. Beside a green bar is a large number: 92%. The student writes in a notebook, “The model is accurate.”",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "After the meeting, a colleague pauses beside the notebook. “What does that number tell you?” The student looks back at the slide. “That it gets most of the documents right?” “Perhaps. Let’s find the file behind it.” The number has not changed, but the student is suddenly less sure what they know.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "What is the difference between believing something and knowing it? A belief is something a person takes to be true. Philosophers commonly distinguish this from knowledge: a belief can be mistaken, and even a true belief may need more than a lucky guess to count as knowledge.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-knowledge",
                "locator": "Introduction and §§1.1–1.3",
                "support": "Separates knowledge-that from other uses of “knowing” and examines truth, belief, and justification."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "One influential account connects knowledge with a belief that is true and justified—that is, supported by adequate reasons. This is a starting point for a debate, not a settled definition. Philosophers disagree about whether these conditions are sufficient and about what adequate justification requires.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-knowledge",
                "locator": "Introduction and §§1.1–1.3",
                "support": "Separates knowledge-that from other uses of “knowing” and examines truth, belief, and justification."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Back in the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The student had accepted the result because it appeared in a lab presentation. That may be a reason to take it seriously, but the student cannot yet explain what was measured. In the notebook, “The model is accurate” becomes “The slide reports 92%; I need to understand what was counted.” The investigation begins with that small revision.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Different uses of “knowing”",
            "text": "Knowing that something is the case and knowing how to do something are different uses of “knowing.” An analysis of knowledge-that does not automatically explain every kind of knowledge.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-knowledge",
                "locator": "Introduction and §§1.1–1.3",
                "support": "Separates knowledge-that from other uses of “knowing” and examines truth, belief, and justification."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "A problem with the starting definition",
            "text": "Gettier cases challenge the idea that justified true belief is sufficient for knowledge. They describe circumstances in which someone has reasons for a belief and the belief is true, but its truth depends on an accident. The difficulty is explaining what must rule out that kind of luck.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-knowledge",
                "locator": "§3, The Gettier Problem",
                "support": "Examines why a belief can be true and justified yet fall short of knowledge through luck."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-knowledge",
        "locator": "Introduction and §§1.1–1.3",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    },
    "claims-and-observations": {
      "title": "Claims and observations",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The colleague sends over a spreadsheet. Each row contains a research document, the category assigned by the model, and a reference category entered by a person. There are 100 rows. The student compares the two category columns and counts 92 matches. Now there is something more specific to write down.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The student opens a blank page and types two sentences: “The model’s categories match the reference categories in 92 of these 100 rows.” Then: “The model understands research documents.” The second sentence sounds more impressive. Looking at it beside the first, the student realizes that the spreadsheet has not shown everything that the second sentence says.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "For this chapter, we use “claim” for something a speaker presents as true. Calling a statement a claim does not tell us whether it is correct; it tells us that there is something to assess.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-assertion",
                "locator": "§3.1, discussion of judgments and truth-related attitudes",
                "support": "Discusses assertion as presenting a proposition as true, while examining the limits of this characterization."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "An observation and a report of that observation are not identical. The report puts what was observed into words. It is therefore possible for an observation report itself to be a claim. Scientific observation can also involve instruments rather than unaided looking.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-observation",
                "locator": "Introduction and §2.1, Observation reports",
                "support": "Distinguishes observation reports from experiences and discusses their relation to evidence and theory."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "In this scene, the first sentence is an observation report: it states the result of a comparison the student carried out. It is also a claim, and another person could check the count. The second sentence makes a much broader claim about understanding. Moving from one to the other requires an argument; changing the wording does not supply that argument.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The colleague asks whether the student counted the hidden rows as well. They inspect the file together and confirm that no rows are excluded. Nothing changes in the total, but the check matters: seeing a number on a screen and knowing how that number was produced are different achievements.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "From a report to scientific evidence",
            "text": "Philosophers debate how concepts and theories enter observation reports and their use as evidence. The question is not simply whether a scientist looked carefully. It is also how a recorded result becomes relevant to a theoretical claim.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-observation",
                "locator": "Introduction and §2.1, Observation reports",
                "support": "Distinguishes observation reports from experiences and discusses their relation to evidence and theory."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-observation",
        "locator": "Introduction and §2.1, Observation reports",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    },
    "what-is-evidence": {
      "title": "Evidence",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "By the afternoon, the student can reproduce the count. At the next desk, however, a lab member asks, “Who chose the reference categories?” One person may have used a category consistently without choosing it well. Another asks whether these 100 documents resemble the documents the model would encounter elsewhere. The student had expected checking the number to finish the task. Instead, it has made the questions more precise.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "Evidence gives us a reason to accept, reject, or reconsider a claim. Something counts as evidence in relation to the claim being assessed. Supporting a claim is not the same as proving it beyond every possibility of error.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-evidence",
                "locator": "Discussion of confirmation, disconfirmation, and verification",
                "support": "Distinguishes evidence that supports or counts against a hypothesis from conclusive verification."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The spreadsheet and the checked count support the narrow claim about agreement in this collection. They do not by themselves establish that the reference categories are appropriate, that the model understands the documents, or that it will perform equally well on a different collection. These are different claims, each needing relevant support.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "Back in the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The student adds a note beneath the result: “92 matches against the supplied reference categories, in this collection of 100 documents.” It is a less dramatic sentence than the one copied during the meeting. It is also a sentence the student can now explain and defend.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Support can have degrees",
            "text": "Evidence can count against a claim as well as support it. Philosophical accounts of confirmation examine how information changes the support a hypothesis receives. On such accounts, evidence need not make the hypothesis certain to be relevant.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-evidence",
                "locator": "Discussion of confirmation, disconfirmation, and verification",
                "support": "Distinguishes evidence that supports or counts against a hypothesis from conclusive verification."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "When reading a study, identify the claim before judging its evidence. Agreement with reference categories, usefulness to readers, and understanding are not interchangeable. In this fictional case, the same result may be relevant to several questions without answering all of them.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-evidence",
        "locator": "Discussion of confirmation, disconfirmation, and verification",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    },
    "explanation-and-investigation": {
      "title": "Explanation and investigation",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The student turns to the eight rows where the categories disagree. Six have no abstract in the saved input. The student circles them and says, “Maybe the missing abstracts explain the errors.” The colleague pulls up a chair. “That is something we can investigate. But first, let’s call them disagreements—we have not checked which category is better.”",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "Reporting that something happened differs from explaining why it happened. An explanation addresses a question about why a phenomenon occurs. Philosophers offer different accounts of what makes an explanation successful.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-explanation",
                "locator": "§1, Introduction",
                "support": "Introduces scientific explanation through questions about why phenomena occur and surveys competing accounts."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The student has moved from a description—six of the eight disagreements occur in rows without abstracts—to a possible explanation: missing text may affect the model’s assignments. The pattern alone does not show that missing text caused the disagreements. Other differences between the documents may matter.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "Together they sketch a comparison. They will take documents with complete abstracts and run the same saved model on each document twice: once with the abstract included and once with it removed. They will keep the titles and other settings the same and record the assigned categories. Before running anything, the student writes a prediction: removing the abstract will reduce agreement with the same reference categories.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "This proposed experiment deliberately changes one part of the input to investigate its effect. Its outcome could support or challenge the prediction, but would still concern these documents, this model, and this measure. The explanation is a proposal being tested; it is not yet an established finding.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "Scientific theories provide wider resources for explaining and predicting phenomena; they can be discussed as statements, models, or other organized representations. Scientific investigation does not follow one compulsory sequence shared by every discipline.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-observation",
                "locator": "Introduction and §2.1, Observation reports",
                "support": "Distinguishes observation reports from experiences and discusses their relation to evidence and theory."
              },
              {
                "source": "intro-method",
                "locator": "Introduction and §1, Overview and organizing themes",
                "support": "Discusses varied scientific methods rather than a universal sequence of steps."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The proposed explanation is also narrower than a theory. It addresses one possible reason for a particular result. A wider account would need to explain more than this one comparison. We will return to theories and their scope in later chapters.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "In this chapter’s examples, a claim says something that can be assessed; evidence bears on that claim; an explanation addresses why something occurs; a prediction says what to expect; and an experiment arranges conditions for investigation. These roles can overlap. A proposed explanation is also a claim.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "Different accounts of explanation",
            "text": "Accounts of scientific explanation disagree about what an explanation must provide. Identifying a cause and placing a phenomenon within a broader pattern are among the approaches discussed in this literature. We should therefore identify the account being used instead of treating “explanation” as an uncontested formula.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-explanation",
                "locator": "§1, Introduction",
                "support": "Introduces scientific explanation through questions about why phenomena occur and surveys competing accounts."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-explanation",
        "locator": "§1, Introduction",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    },
    "what-is-science": {
      "title": "Science",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "Later that week, the student tries to describe the work to another graduate student. “I think we are doing science,” they say, then hesitate. There are no test tubes on the desk—only documents, code, and notes. Is running a comparison what makes the work scientific? Would interpreting the categories count too?",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "What people call science has a history. Discussions of scientific method reach back through traditions with different understandings of knowledge and reasoning. We should not assume that past investigators used today’s categories or followed one timeless method.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-method",
                "locator": "§2, Historical review: Aristotle to Mill",
                "support": "Traces changing accounts of scientific reasoning and method across historical settings."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "A revealing example is the English word “scientist.” William Whewell introduced it in 1833. Earlier terms included “natural philosopher” and “man of science.” Investigating nature did not begin with this new name; the vocabulary used to identify its practitioners changed.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-whewell",
                "locator": "Opening biographical discussion",
                "support": "Attributes the term “scientist” to Whewell in 1833 and contrasts earlier names for investigators of nature."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "For now, we will use “science” broadly for organized inquiries into the world and the knowledge they produce. This is a working orientation for reading, not a rule that settles which activities qualify as science. When discussing a historical case, we will ask what its participants meant by their own terms.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "Back in the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "At the next meeting, the student asks whether there is one method they should follow to make the project scientific. A colleague recommends starting with a more concrete task: write down the question, explain the comparison, and make the reasoning open to criticism. The student keeps the larger question in the notebook. A department name or a familiar sequence of steps will not settle it for them.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Methods have histories too",
            "text": "Historical discussions of method include different accounts of demonstration, observation, and inference. These are arguments about how knowledge can be established. Their differences matter when we compare an earlier practice with a modern one.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-method",
                "locator": "§2, Historical review: Aristotle to Mill",
                "support": "Traces changing accounts of scientific reasoning and method across historical settings."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The history of an English label is only one part of the history of knowledge. It cannot establish when inquiry began across all societies. A fuller account needs specific languages, places, institutions, and periods rather than a single origin story.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-whewell",
        "locator": "Opening biographical discussion",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    },
    "what-is-research": {
      "title": "Research",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The student’s task list now has two different kinds of work. One is to recover information already recorded: which model produced the spreadsheet, and which input files were used? The other is to investigate something the group has not established: how does including or removing an abstract affect the assignments? Both tasks take effort, but they do not have the same purpose.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "In this chapter, “research” means a deliberate investigation of a question whose answer is not already settled for the inquiry. Looking up a fact can be part of that work, but it does not by itself describe the whole investigation.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "Recovering a file’s history helps the student understand an existing result. Planning a comparison opens a question whose answer remains uncertain. The first task can be essential to the second. This distinction does not mean that all research must involve an experiment; it clarifies what is new about the inquiry in this story.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "For a more precise institutional definition, the OECD’s Frascati Manual describes research and experimental development as creative, systematic work that expands knowledge or develops new applications. Its criteria include novelty and uncertainty. This definition is designed to classify R&D for statistics; it is not a final definition of every activity called research.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-research",
                "locator": "Chapter 2, §§2.5–2.8, pp. 44–45",
                "support": "Defines R&D for statistical purposes through creative, systematic work and five identifying criteria."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Back in the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The student starts a short plan: the question, the documents to compare, the settings to record, and the limits of what the result could show. There is no discovery to announce yet. There is a way to proceed—and a record that someone else could examine.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "An institutional distinction",
            "text": "The manual distinguishes basic research, applied research, and experimental development. Basic research seeks knowledge without a particular application in view; applied research pursues a practical aim; experimental development draws on knowledge to produce further knowledge directed toward new or improved products or processes.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-research",
                "locator": "Chapter 2, §§2.9–2.11, p. 45",
                "support": "Distinguishes basic research, applied research, and experimental development without making them a fixed sequence."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "What a classification does not establish",
            "text": "These categories are not a compulsory sequence from discovery to application. The manual explicitly rejects that reading. When using R&D statistics, we must keep their classification purpose in view rather than assume they describe every feature of research practice.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-research",
                "locator": "Chapter 2, §§2.9–2.11, p. 45",
                "support": "Distinguishes basic research, applied research, and experimental development without making them a fixed sequence."
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-research",
        "locator": "Chapter 2, §§2.5–2.8, pp. 44–45",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    },
    "what-is-technology": {
      "title": "Technology",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "Before the comparison can begin, the student tries to recover the complete abstracts. The saved file does not distinguish an abstract that was unavailable from one that was lost during processing. A colleague traces the steps that produced the file. The student had thought of the AI model as “the technology.” Now the document format, the import script, and a blank cell in a spreadsheet are shaping what can be investigated.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "Technology involves more than the latest digital devices. Philosophical discussions include artifacts, practical knowledge, and design. They also examine how technological activity relates to science, rather than treating technology simply as scientific ideas put to use.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-technology",
                "locator": "§§2.1–2.3, relations to science, technical knowledge, and design",
                "support": "Discusses technological knowledge and design, and the mutual dependence of modern science and technology."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The term has a changing history. The publisher’s overview of Eric Schatzberg’s historical study explains that several modern meanings emerged in the twentieth century, including industrial arts, applied science, and technique. These meanings coexist; they do not form one uncontested definition.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-technology-history",
                "locator": "Publisher overview, paragraphs 2–4",
                "support": "Summarizes historical tensions over technical work and the twentieth-century emergence of several modern meanings."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Back in the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The colleague proposes recording the reason for each missing abstract instead of leaving every case blank. This will take time, and it may not change the headline result at all. But the student sees why it matters: a future reader needs to know what the blank cells mean. A modest change to a file can change what the team is able to explain.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The scene connects technical design with inquiry. The student depends on a tool and its records to investigate a question; investigating the question also reveals a reason to change those records. This illustrates a relationship to examine, rather than proving that every technology develops in the same way.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "A relationship in both directions",
            "text": "Modern science and technology can depend on one another. Scientific inquiry uses instruments and techniques, while technological design may use scientific knowledge. The relation therefore cannot be captured by a single arrow from science to application.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-technology",
                "locator": "§§2.1–2.3, relations to science, technical knowledge, and design",
                "support": "Discusses technological knowledge and design, and the mutual dependence of modern science and technology."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "A historical account should distinguish the history of a word from the history of practices later described by that word. When reading about “technology,” ask whether the author means objects, skills, industrial activities, or a particular view of their relation to science.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-technology",
        "locator": "§§2.1–2.3, relations to science, technical knowledge, and design",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    },
    "what-is-sts": {
      "title": "Science and Technology Studies",
      "levels": {
        "Foundations": [
          {
            "title": "In the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "At the end of the week, the student returns to the slide with the green bar. They can now see work that the slide did not display: someone selected documents, someone assigned reference categories, someone prepared the input, and someone decided to report a single percentage. None of this makes the number meaningless. It gives the student more to understand about how it came to mean something in the lab.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "Science and Technology Studies, or STS, studies how scientific and technological activities are carried out and how they connect with social life. Sismondo introduces it as an interdisciplinary field drawing on approaches including history, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-sismondo",
                "locator": "Preface, pp. vii–viii; chapter 1, pp. 10–11",
                "support": "Presents an interdisciplinary field studying scientific and technological activities, practices, and outcomes."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The student’s first question concerned a result: what does 92% tell us? An STS inquiry could also examine how the lab chose that measure, whose judgments became the reference categories, and why the result was presented as convincing. These questions concern the practices and relationships through which a finding is produced and assessed.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          },
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "Studying that work does not require ignoring the material world. Sismondo examines how communities, standards, resources, and material practices participate in making knowledge. The result is a question about how knowledge is produced, rather than an assumption that it appears automatically from observation.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-sismondo",
                "locator": "Chapter 1, pp. 10–11",
                "support": "Examines communities, standards, resources, and material work without treating knowledge as a simple transcription of nature."
              }
            ]
          },
          {
            "title": "Back in the lab · fictional story",
            "text": "The student closes the notebook after adding two questions for the next meeting. “What can our comparison establish?” And beneath it: “How did we decide that this was the comparison worth making?” The experiment is still ahead. So are conversations about the categories, the documents, and the people who might use the results.",
            "kind": "illustration",
            "citations": []
          }
        ],
        "Advanced": [
          {
            "title": "Connecting ideas with activities",
            "text": "Sismondo’s introduction treats science and technology as activities sustained by people with training, shared standards, and resources. This gives us a way to connect the earlier vocabulary of claims and evidence with questions about institutions and practices.",
            "kind": "paraphrase",
            "citations": [
              {
                "source": "intro-sismondo",
                "locator": "Chapter 1, pp. 10–11",
                "support": "Examines communities, standards, resources, and material work without treating knowledge as a simple transcription of nature."
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "Research": [
          {
            "title": "",
            "text": "The chapters that follow introduce selected approaches to these questions. We will ask what each author is trying to explain, what evidence supports the account, and where competing interpretations remain. STS will be presented through those differences, rather than as one answer shared by every scholar.",
            "kind": "editorial",
            "citations": []
          }
        ]
      },
      "reading": {
        "source": "intro-sismondo",
        "locator": "Preface, pp. vii–viii; chapter 1, pp. 10–11",
        "guidance": "Begin with the cited passage; the source notes identify what supports this section."
      },
      "version": "0.5",
      "revised": "2026-09-24",
      "status": "source-checked-draft",
      "preparedBy": "AI-assisted editorial draft",
      "reviewer": null,
      "revisions": [
        {
          "version": "0.4",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "First introductory draft, written for close reading and feedback."
        },
        {
          "version": "0.5",
          "date": "2026-09-24",
          "change": "Replaced disconnected examples with a continuous fictional graduate-lab story; retained sourced explanations and progressive reading levels."
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "narrativeNote": "The Chapter 1 student, dialogue, project, and numerical results are fictional teaching material, not a report of a real study. The protagonist is an Information Science graduate student in an interdisciplinary lab; no name, gender, university, permanent product, or company partnership is established.",
  "releaseNote": "Only Chapter 1 is released for reading and review. Later chapter routes are held as unpublished drafts pending finalization of Chapter 1. Concept entries remain available in Explore and Look up.",
  "reading": {
    "chapter": "introduction",
    "title": {
      "en": "Philosophy of Science",
      "zh": "科学哲学",
      "ko": "과학철학"
    },
    "passages": [
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-1",
        "studyId": "N001",
        "text": {
          "en": "Walking along the beach, you see what looks like a picture of Winston Churchill in the sand.",
          "zh": "沿着海滩散步时，你看到沙地上有个看起来像温斯顿·丘吉尔画像的图案。",
          "ko": "해변을 걷다가 모래 위에 윈스턴 처칠의 그림처럼 보이는 것을 발견한다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Abduction",
          "section": "1. Abduction: The General Idea",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#AbdGenIde",
          "context": "The beach example contrasts an intentional drawing with an ant’s trace. It presents a belief reached through explanation, not a proof.",
          "wording": "Walking along the beach, you see what looks like a picture of Winston Churchill in the sand."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-2",
        "studyId": "N002",
        "text": {
          "en": "It could be that, as in the opening pages of Hilary Putnam’s book *Reason, Truth, and History*, (1981), what you see is actually the trace of an ant crawling on the beach.",
          "zh": "就像希拉里·普特南的《理性、真理与历史》（1981）开篇所描写的那样，你看到的其实可能是一只蚂蚁在海滩上爬行留下的痕迹。",
          "ko": "힐러리 퍼트넘의 책 『이성, 진리, 역사』(1981)의 첫 부분에 나오는 것처럼, 당신이 보는 것은 사실 해변을 기어 다니던 개미가 남긴 흔적일 수도 있다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Abduction",
          "section": "1. Abduction: The General Idea",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#AbdGenIde",
          "context": "The beach example contrasts an intentional drawing with an ant’s trace. It presents a belief reached through explanation, not a proof.",
          "wording": "It could be that, as in the opening pages of Hilary Putnam’s book *Reason, Truth, and History*, (1981), what you see is actually the trace of an ant crawling on the beach."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-3",
        "studyId": "N003",
        "text": {
          "en": "The much simpler, and therefore (you think) much better, explanation is that someone intentionally drew a picture of Churchill in the sand.",
          "zh": "简单得多、因此（在你看来）也好得多的解释是：有人有意在沙地上画了一幅丘吉尔的画像。",
          "ko": "훨씬 더 단순하고, 따라서 (당신이 생각하기에) 훨씬 더 나은 설명은 누군가가 의도적으로 모래 위에 처칠의 그림을 그렸다는 것이다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Abduction",
          "section": "1. Abduction: The General Idea",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#AbdGenIde",
          "context": "The beach example contrasts an intentional drawing with an ant’s trace. It presents a belief reached through explanation, not a proof.",
          "wording": "The much simpler, and therefore (you think) much better, explanation is that someone intentionally drew a picture of Churchill in the sand."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-4",
        "studyId": "N004",
        "text": {
          "en": "That, in any case, is what you come away believing.",
          "zh": "无论如何，你最终相信的就是这一点。",
          "ko": "어쨌든, 당신은 결국 그렇게 믿게 된다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Abduction",
          "section": "1. Abduction: The General Idea",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#AbdGenIde",
          "context": "The beach example contrasts an intentional drawing with an ant’s trace. It presents a belief reached through explanation, not a proof.",
          "wording": "That, in any case, is what you come away believing."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-5",
        "studyId": "N008",
        "text": {
          "en": "After all, hardly ever will we have considered, or will it even be possible to consider, all potential explanations.",
          "zh": "毕竟，我们几乎不曾考虑过所有可能的解释，甚至几乎不可能将它们全部考虑到。",
          "ko": "어쨌든, 우리가 가능한 모든 설명을 검토해 보았거나, 심지어 그것들을 모두 검토하는 것이 가능한 경우는 거의 없을 것이다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Abduction",
          "section": "2. Explicating Abduction",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/#ExpAbd",
          "context": "paragraph beginning “How reasonable is it to suppose”, sentence beginning “After all”. This occurs in a discussion of a challenge to choosing the best explanation; responses follow in the source.",
          "wording": "After all, hardly ever will we have considered, or will it even be possible to consider, all potential explanations."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-6",
        "studyId": "N009",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] one may simply end up with “the best of a bad lot”.",
          "zh": "[…]人们最终可能只是选中了“一堆糟糕选项中最好的一个”。",
          "ko": "[…] 그저 “좋지 않은 후보들 중 가장 나은 것”을 선택하는 데 그칠 수도 있다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Scientific Realism",
          "section": "3.2 Skepticism about Inference to the Best Explanation",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/#SkepAbouInfeBestExpl",
          "context": "paragraph beginning “A second difficulty”, third sentence. The source considers the risk that the correct account is absent from the alternatives considered. The excerpt expresses a possibility, not a verdict that the beach explanation is wrong.",
          "wording": "Otherwise, as van Fraassen (1989: 143) notes, one may simply end up with “the best of a bad lot”."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-7",
        "studyId": "N016",
        "text": {
          "en": "Disorder: A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168).",
          "zh": "凌乱的房间：一个男人回到家，发现房间凌乱，物品散落各处。他起初想到的解释是入室盗窃，随后又想到也可能是淘气的孩子造成的。接着，他查看贵重物品是否丢失，并发现确实如此（1910：82–83；1933：166–168）。",
          "ko": "어질러진 방: 한 남자가 집에 돌아와 보니 방들이 어질러져 있고 소지품들이 여기저기 흩어져 있다. 그는 처음에는 도둑이 들었을 것이라고 생각하고, 다음에는 장난꾸러기 아이들이 그랬을 가능성도 생각한다. 그러고 나서 귀중품이 없어졌는지 살펴보고, 실제로 없어진 것을 발견한다(1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168)."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Critical Thinking",
          "section": "§2.2, paragraph id exam-disorder",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/#exam-disorder",
          "context": "complete example, including its original “Disorder:” label, retained from the source. Korean and Chinese translations split the long sentence for readability.",
          "wording": "Disorder: A man finds his rooms on his return to them in disorder with his belongings thrown about, thinks at first of burglary as an explanation, then thinks of mischievous children as being an alternative explanation, then looks to see whether valuables are missing, and discovers that they are (1910: 82–83; 1933: 166–168)."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-8",
        "studyId": "N018",
        "text": {
          "en": "Observing: One notices something in one’s immediate environment […].",
          "zh": "观察：注意到自己周围的某些事物[…]。",
          "ko": "관찰하기: 자신의 바로 주변에서 무언가를 알아차린다[…]."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Critical Thinking",
          "section": "6. Components of the Process",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/#CompProc",
          "context": "“Observing” list item, first sentence. Other examples are omitted from the reading excerpt and preserved in the original wording. The definition names noticing what is present, an activity already illustrated by the beach and room examples; the reading order here is our editorial choice.",
          "wording": "Observing: One notices something in one’s immediate environment (sudden cooling of temperature in Weather, bubbles forming outside a glass and then going inside in Bubbles, a moving blur in the distance in Blur, a rash in Rash)."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-9",
        "studyId": "N017",
        "text": {
          "en": "Inferring: One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder[…]).",
          "zh": "推理：设想某个可能的答案成立，并想一想在这种情况下会有什么结果（在“凌乱的房间”中，如果发生了入室盗窃，贵重物品就会丢失[…]）。",
          "ko": "추론하기: 가능한 답 하나를 가정했을 때 어떤 일이 성립할지 생각해 본다(「어질러진 방」에서 도둑이 들었다면 귀중품이 없어졌을 것이라는 점[…])."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Critical Thinking",
          "section": "6. Components of the Process",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/#CompProc",
          "context": "“Inferring” list item, first sentence. “Disorder” names the example in passage 7; the unrelated rash example is set aside. This describes one form of inferring; the source describes another immediately afterward.",
          "wording": "Inferring: One works out what would be the case if a possible answer were assumed (valuables missing if there has been a burglary in Disorder, earlier start to the rash if it is an allergic reaction to a sulfa drug in Rash)."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-10",
        "studyId": "N019",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] one notes the results of […] systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder[…])",
          "zh": "[…]记录[…]系统观察的结果（“凌乱的房间”中贵重物品丢失[…]）",
          "ko": "[…] 체계적인 관찰의 결과를 기록한다(「어질러진 방」에서 귀중품이 없어진 것[…])"
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Critical Thinking",
          "section": "6. Components of the Process",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/#CompProc",
          "context": "second part of the “Observing” list item. “Disorder” refers to passage 7. We select systematic observation, deferring the experiment alternative and the unrelated suction-pump example. The source item has no terminal period; its wording is preserved.",
          "wording": "Or one notes the results of an experiment or systematic observation (valuables missing in Disorder, no suction without air pressure in Suction pump)"
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-11",
        "studyId": "N020",
        "text": {
          "en": "Evidence, whatever else it is, is the kind of thing which can make a difference to […] what it is reasonable for one to believe.",
          "zh": "证据，无论它还是什么，都是能够影响[…]一个人相信什么才算合理的东西。",
          "ko": "증거는 그 밖에 무엇이든 간에, […] 무엇을 믿는 것이 합리적인지에 차이를 가져올 수 있는 것이다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Evidence",
          "section": "1. Evidence as That Which Justifies Belief",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/#EviWhiJusBel",
          "context": "first prose sentence after the opening quotation. The alternative formulation in terms of justification and its qualification are deferred together; the qualification is preserved in the original wording and is not denied.",
          "wording": "Evidence, whatever else it is, is the kind of thing which can make a difference to what one is justified in believing or (what is often, but not always, taken to be the same thing) what it is reasonable for one to believe."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-12",
        "studyId": "N021",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered ([…] burglary in Disorder[…]).",
          "zh": "[…]在收集到足够的相关证据后得出结论（[…]在“凌乱的房间”中判断发生了入室盗窃[…]）。",
          "ko": "[…] 충분한 관련 증거가 모이면 결론을 내린다([…] 「어질러진 방」에서 도둑이 들었다고 판단하는 것[…])."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Critical Thinking",
          "section": "6. Components of the Process",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/#CompProc",
          "context": "“Inferring” list item, second sentence. “Disorder” is the room example in passage 7. The opening alternative connector and the two unrelated examples are omitted in the reading excerpt. “Sufficient relevant evidence” is retained: finding valuables missing is not by itself presented as conclusive proof of burglary.",
          "wording": "Or one draws a conclusion once sufficient relevant evidence is gathered (take the subway in Transit, burglary in Disorder, discontinue blood pressure medication and new cream in Rash)."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-13",
        "studyId": "N022",
        "text": {
          "en": "Indeed, in a given case one might be led astray by following one's evidence, as when one's evidence is misleading.",
          "zh": "确实，在某些情况下，人可能会因遵循自己掌握的证据而误入歧途，例如当这些证据具有误导性时。",
          "ko": "실제로, 어떤 경우에는 증거가 오해를 불러일으킬 때처럼, 자신이 가진 증거를 따르다가 잘못된 판단에 이를 수도 있다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Evidence",
          "section": "2. Rational Thinkers Respect Their Evidence",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/#RatThiResTheEvi",
          "context": "first prose paragraph after the opening quotations, fourth sentence (beginning “Indeed”). Complete sentence, no omissions. Introduces the possibility that evidence can mislead; it does not assert that the conclusion in passage 7 is actually wrong.",
          "wording": "Indeed, in a given case one might be led astray by following one's evidence, as when one's evidence is misleading."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-14",
        "studyId": "N023",
        "text": {
          "en": "But being mistaken is not the same as being unreasonable.",
          "zh": "但是，判断错误并不等于不理性。",
          "ko": "하지만 틀렸다는 것이 비합리적이었다는 것과 같지는 않다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Evidence",
          "section": "2. Rational Thinkers Respect Their Evidence",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/#RatThiResTheEvi",
          "context": "first prose paragraph after the opening quotations, fifth sentence, immediately following passage 13. Complete sentence, no omissions. Distinguishes making a mistake from being unreasonable, in the context of following misleading evidence.",
          "wording": "But being mistaken is not the same as being unreasonable."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-15",
        "studyId": "N024",
        "text": {
          "en": "To the extent that one respects one's evidence, one is not unreasonable even when one is wrong.[…]",
          "zh": "只要尊重自己掌握的证据，即使判断错误，也并非不理性。[…]",
          "ko": "자신이 가진 증거를 존중하는 한, 틀렸더라도 비합리적인 것은 아니다.[…]"
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Evidence",
          "section": "2. Rational Thinkers Respect Their Evidence",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/#RatThiResTheEvi",
          "context": "first prose paragraph after the opening quotations, sixth and final sentence, immediately following passage 14. Complete sentence with source footnote marker [9] visibly deferred using omission marks. In this paragraph, respecting evidence means responding appropriately to it, including changes in it.",
          "wording": "To the extent that one respects one's evidence, one is not unreasonable even when one is wrong.[9]"
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-16",
        "studyId": "N025",
        "text": {
          "en": "It is always open to us to reconsider a decision and change our minds if we no longer think our original judgement was correct.",
          "zh": "如果我们不再认为原来的判断是正确的，我们随时可以重新考虑决定并改变想法。",
          "ko": "처음의 판단이 옳았다고 더 이상 생각하지 않는다면, 우리는 언제든 결정을 다시 검토하고 생각을 바꿀 수 있다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Precedent and Analogy in Legal Reasoning",
          "section": "Section 1, paragraph beginning Arguments from precedent and analogy, final sentence",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-reas-prec/",
          "context": "§1, paragraph beginning “Arguments from precedent and analogy”, final sentence. Complete sentence, no omissions. The source describes individuals reconsidering everyday decisions, in contrast to the special role of precedent in law. Here it follows the possibility of being mistaken; it is not offered as a complete account of scientific belief revision.",
          "wording": "It is always open to us to reconsider a decision and change our minds if we no longer think our original judgement was correct."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-17",
        "studyId": "N028",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] further evidence[…] can yield new understanding that replaces our older, seemingly well-confirmed conclusions (BW, 8:77–9).",
          "zh": "[…]进一步的证据[…]能够带来新的理解，取代我们先前那些看似已得到充分证实的结论（BW, 8:77–9）。",
          "ko": "[…] 추가적인 증거[…]는 예전에 충분히 확인되었다고 여겼던 결론을 대체하는 새로운 이해를 낳을 수 있다(BW, 8:77–9)."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Robert Boyle",
          "section": "4.7 The limits of experience",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boyle/#LimExp",
          "context": "paragraph beginning “He is also aware that new tools”, first sentence. “He” refers to Boyle; that attribution, “new tools”, and “differing approaches” are omitted from the reading excerpt and preserved in the original wording. We select further evidence from the source’s list; the other means of gaining understanding are deferred, not denied. The source presents Boyle’s view, not a statement that every new piece of evidence overturns a conclusion. BW is the source’s reference to Boyle’s works. This passage connects reconsideration with new evidence and new understanding.",
          "wording": "He is also aware that new tools, further evidence, and differing approaches can yield new understanding that replaces our older, seemingly well-confirmed conclusions (BW, 8:77–9)."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-18",
        "studyId": "N029",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] one should not be too confident that what one believes now is the final word.",
          "zh": "[…]不应过于确信自己现在所相信的就是最终定论。",
          "ko": "[…] 지금 자신이 믿는 것이 최종적인 답이라고 너무 확신해서는 안 된다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Robert Boyle",
          "section": "4.7 The limits of experience",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/boyle/#LimExp",
          "context": "paragraph beginning “He is also aware that new tools”, second sentence, immediately following passage 17 in the source. The clause introducing natural philosophy is deferred with omission marks. The retained clause expresses the caution that follows the possibility of replacement by further evidence. The source is explaining Boyle’s outlook.",
          "wording": "Natural philosophy is a long-term project, and one should not be too confident that what one believes now is the final word."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-19",
        "studyId": "N030",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence[…] might cause one to answer differently […].",
          "zh": "[…]开放的心态，也就是愿意审视那些自己已经接受了某个答案、但进一步的证据[…]可能使自己作出不同回答的问题 […]。",
          "ko": "[…] 열린 마음, 즉 이미 어떤 답을 받아들이고 있지만 추가적인 증거[…]에 따라 다른 답을 내릴 수도 있는 질문을 기꺼이 검토하려는 태도 […]."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Critical Thinking",
          "section": "8.1 Initiating Dispositions",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/#InitDisp",
          "context": "“Open-mindedness” list item, third sentence, beginning “Thus willingness”. Selected definition excerpt, not a standalone full source sentence. The framing about critical thinking, the alternative “or reasoning”, and citations are deferred visibly. The retained text introduces open-mindedness through willingness to reconsider an already accepted answer in light of further evidence, following passage 18.",
          "wording": "Thus willingness to think critically requires open-mindedness, in the sense of a willingness to examine questions to which one already accepts an answer but which further evidence or reasoning might cause one to answer differently (Dewey 1933; Facione 1990a; Ennis 1991; Bailin et al. 1999b; Halpern 1998, Facione, Facione, & Giancarlo 2001)."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-20",
        "studyId": "N031",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”[…].",
          "zh": "[…]积极的开放式思考，包括“倾向于对照自己偏向的信念来权衡新证据，在放弃之前花足够的时间思考问题，以及在形成自己的意见时认真考虑他人的意见”[…]。",
          "ko": "[…] 적극적으로 열린 마음으로 생각하기에는 “자신이 선호하는 믿음에 비추어 새로운 증거를 따져 보고, 포기하기 전에 문제에 충분한 시간을 들이며, 자신의 의견을 형성할 때 다른 사람들의 의견을 신중하게 고려하는 성향”이 포함된다[…]."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Critical Thinking",
          "section": "8.1 Initiating Dispositions",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/#InitDisp",
          "context": "“Open-mindedness” list item, final sentence, beginning “In three studies”. Selected descriptive excerpt, not a full standalone English sentence. SEP quotes Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) in the retained description. The study attribution and reported outcome are omitted from the reading excerpt and preserved in the original wording; neither is denied. This gives concrete behaviors illustrating the open-mindedness introduced in passage 19. Korean reorganizes the sentence to preserve readability.",
          "wording": "In three studies, Haran, Ritov, & Mellers (2013) found that actively open-minded thinking, including “the tendency to weigh new evidence against a favored belief, to spend sufficient time on a problem before giving up, and to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own”, led study participants to acquire information and thus to make accurate estimations."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-21",
        "studyId": "N033",
        "text": {
          "en": "You disagree with your sister regarding the location of the piano in your childhood home, with you thinking it was in the primary living area and her thinking it was in the small den.",
          "zh": "你和你的姐妹对童年家中钢琴摆放的位置有不同看法：你认为它在主要的起居室里，而她认为它在那间小书房里。",
          "ko": "어린 시절 살던 집에서 피아노가 어디에 있었는지를 두고 당신과 자매의 생각이 다르다. 당신은 주로 쓰던 거실에 있었다고 생각하지만, 자매는 작은 서재에 있었다고 생각한다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Disagreement",
          "section": "Introduction",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/",
          "context": "first paragraph, fourth sentence, beginning “You disagree with your sister”. Complete sentence, no omissions. Follows passage 20’s consideration of others’ opinions with a concrete case in which two people remember the same matter differently. Korean splits the sentence for readability; “sister” does not specify relative age.",
          "wording": "You disagree with your sister regarding the location of the piano in your childhood home, with you thinking it was in the primary living area and her thinking it was in the small den."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-22",
        "studyId": "N034",
        "text": {
          "en": "When you learned that your sister thought the piano had been in the den instead of the living room, you acquired a good reason to think it really wasn’t in the living room, as you know full well that your sister is a generally intelligent individual, has the appropriate background experience (she lived in the house too), and is about as honest, forthright, and good at remembering events from childhood as you are.",
          "zh": "当你得知你的姐妹认为钢琴在书房而不是起居室时，你就有了一个充分的理由去认为钢琴确实不在起居室，因为你很清楚，她通常是个聪明的人，有相关的亲身经历（她也住过那所房子），而且和你一样诚实、坦率，也同样善于记住童年的事情。",
          "ko": "자매가 피아노가 거실이 아니라 서재에 있었다고 생각한다는 것을 알게 되었을 때, 당신은 피아노가 실제로 거실에 있지 않았다고 생각할 만한 좋은 이유를 얻게 되었다. 자매는 대체로 지적인 사람이고, 관련된 경험도 있으며(그녀도 그 집에서 살았다), 당신만큼 정직하고 솔직하며 어린 시절의 일을 잘 기억한다는 것을 당신이 잘 알고 있기 때문이다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Disagreement",
          "section": "Introduction",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/",
          "context": "second paragraph, second sentence, beginning “When you learned”. Complete sentence, no omissions. Continues the piano example in passage 21 and states the features of the sister that make her disagreement a reason to reconsider. This is a reason, not proof that her recollection is correct. Korean translation splits the long sentence for readability.",
          "wording": "When you learned that your sister thought the piano had been in the den instead of the living room, you acquired a good reason to think it really wasn’t in the living room, as you know full well that your sister is a generally intelligent individual, has the appropriate background experience (she lived in the house too), and is about as honest, forthright, and good at remembering events from childhood as you are."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-23",
        "studyId": "N035",
        "text": {
          "en": "If, in the face of all this, you stick with your belief that the piano was in the living room, will your retaining that belief be reasonable?",
          "zh": "面对这一切，如果你仍然坚持相信钢琴在起居室里，那么继续保持这一信念是否合理？",
          "ko": "이 모든 점에도 불구하고 피아노가 거실에 있었다는 믿음을 고수한다면, 그 믿음을 계속 유지하는 것이 합리적일까?"
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Disagreement",
          "section": "Introduction",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/",
          "context": "second paragraph, third and final sentence, immediately following passage 22. Complete question, no omissions. “All this” refers to the sister’s different recollection and the relevant qualities described in passage 22. The source poses a question about whether retaining the belief is reasonable; it does not settle the answer here.",
          "wording": "If, in the face of all this, you stick with your belief that the piano was in the living room, will your retaining that belief be reasonable?"
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-24",
        "studyId": "N036",
        "text": {
          "en": "It seems that awareness of disagreement can, at least in many cases, supply one with a powerful reason to think that one’s belief is false.",
          "zh": "意识到自己与他人存在分歧，似乎至少在许多情况下，能够给自己一个强有力的理由，去认为自己的信念是错误的。",
          "ko": "다른 사람과 의견이 다르다는 사실을 알게 되면, 적어도 많은 경우에는 자신의 믿음이 틀렸다고 생각할 강한 이유가 생길 수 있는 듯하다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Disagreement",
          "section": "Introduction",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/",
          "context": "second paragraph, first sentence. Complete sentence, no omissions. In the source this precedes passages 22–23; our teaching order places the general point after the concrete example and question. All qualifications are retained: “It seems”, “can”, and “at least in many cases”. The passage identifies a reason to reconsider, not proof of error or a universal instruction to agree with others.",
          "wording": "It seems that awareness of disagreement can, at least in many cases, supply one with a powerful reason to think that one’s belief is false."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-25",
        "studyId": "N038",
        "text": {
          "en": "This would appear to depend on our evidence regarding who is better-placed to reach a correct verdict on the matter at hand.",
          "zh": "这似乎取决于我们掌握的证据：在当前问题上，谁更有条件作出正确判断。",
          "ko": "이는 해당 문제에 관해 누가 올바른 판단에 도달하기에 더 유리한 위치에 있는지를 보여 주는 증거에 달려 있는 듯하다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Social Epistemology",
          "section": "3.2 Peer Disagreement",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/#PeerDisa",
          "context": "first paragraph, fifth sentence. Complete sentence, no omissions. In the source, “This” refers to whether disagreement calls for retaining or reducing confidence. In our sequence, it continues the issue raised in passages 23–24: how to respond to disagreement. The evidence about the sister in passage 22 supplies a concrete earlier example of comparing the people involved. This transition does not claim every disagreement warrants changing belief.",
          "wording": "This would appear to depend on our evidence regarding who is better-placed to reach a correct verdict on the matter at hand."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-26",
        "studyId": "N040",
        "text": {
          "en": "But consider […] someone who is roughly as likely as oneself to get it right on the matter at hand.",
          "zh": "但是，考虑[…]一个在当前问题上答对的可能性与自己大致相同的人。",
          "ko": "하지만 […] 해당 문제에 대해 자신과 대략 같은 가능성으로 올바른 답을 내릴 수 있는 사람을 생각해 보자."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Social Epistemology",
          "section": "3.2 Peer Disagreement",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/#PeerDisa",
          "context": "first paragraph, sixth sentence, immediately following passage 25. Selected wording with omissions preserved in place. Retaining “But consider” gives the retained text a complete imperative sentence. The setup about prior evidence and the label “epistemic peer” are deferred visibly. This invites consideration of the equally-likely case; it does not assert that every disagreeing person is equally likely to be correct.",
          "wording": "But consider the case in which, prior to the disagreement, one has excellent evidence that one’s interlocutor is an “epistemic peer,” someone who is roughly as likely as oneself to get it right on the matter at hand."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-27",
        "studyId": "N041",
        "text": {
          "en": "[…] both parties are in an equally good […] position, so it would follow that their opinions on the matter should be given equal weight.",
          "zh": "[…]双方都处于同样有利的[…]位置，因此可以得出，他们对该问题的意见应被赋予同等的分量。",
          "ko": "[…] 양쪽이 동등하게 좋은 […] 위치에 있으므로, 그 문제에 관한 양쪽의 의견에 같은 무게를 두어야 한다는 결론이 따라올 것이다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Disagreement",
          "section": "5.1 The Equal Weight View",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/#EquaWeigView",
          "context": "paragraph beginning “Equal Weight is also motivated”, final sentence. Exact source wording with marked omissions. The peer-disagreement label and the adjective epistemic are deferred; the comparison of the two people is retained and follows the case invited in 26. This is part of the source’s motivation for one view, not a settled answer or a rule for every disagreement. Other views are discussed in the entry. “Would follow” is retained.",
          "wording": "However, in cases of peer disagreement, both parties are in an equally good epistemic position, so it would follow that their opinions on the matter should be given equal weight."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-28",
        "studyId": "N042",
        "text": {
          "en": "Giving the […] opinions equal weight has typically been understood to require ‘splitting the difference’ between the […] opinions, at least when the two […] opinions exhaust one’s evidence about the opinions on the matter.",
          "zh": "赋予[…]意见同等分量，通常被理解为需要在这些[…]意见之间“折中”，至少在这两个[…]意见构成了自己对该问题上的意见所掌握的全部证据时是如此。",
          "ko": "[…] 의견에 같은 무게를 두는 것은, 적어도 해당 문제에 관한 의견을 판단할 때 자신이 가진 증거가 두 […] 의견뿐인 경우에는, 보통 두 […] 의견 사이에서 ‘차이를 절충하는 것’을 요구한다고 이해되어 왔다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Disagreement",
          "section": "5.1 The Equal Weight View",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/disagreement/#EquaWeigView",
          "context": "paragraph following the Restaurant Check Case, sentence beginning “Giving the peer opinions equal weight”. Exact source wording with only the repeated peer label deferred visibly. The qualifier about the opinions exhausting the available evidence is retained. The equally-placed people in 26–27 supply the case; this is not a recommendation to compromise in every disagreement. “Splitting the difference” concerns confidence in answers, not averaging the proposed answers themselves; the source explicitly distinguishes these afterward.",
          "wording": "Giving the peer opinions equal weight has typically been understood to require ‘splitting the difference’ between the peer opinions, at least when the two peer opinions exhaust one’s evidence about the opinions on the matter."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-29",
        "studyId": "N043",
        "text": {
          "en": "Should one […] split the difference by taking the middle ground between the opponent’s belief and one’s own on the issue[…]?",
          "zh": "我们是否应该[…]通过在对方的信念和自己对该问题的信念之间采取中间立场来折中[…]？",
          "ko": "[…] 상대방의 믿음과 해당 문제에 관한 자신의 믿음 사이에서 중간 입장을 취하여 차이를 절충해야 하는가[…]?"
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Agent-Based Modeling in the Philosophy of Science",
          "section": "2.5 Peer-disagreement in science",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agent-modeling-philscience/#PeerDisaScie",
          "context": "paragraph beginning “This issue has been discussed”, third sentence, beginning “Should one follow”. Exact source wording with marked omissions. We retain the question about splitting the difference and its description as taking a middle ground between beliefs. The named norm and other alternatives are deferred visibly; this is not an assertion that compromise is always required. In the disagreement discussion, middle ground concerns beliefs/confidence, not averaging the locations or numerical answers being disputed.",
          "wording": "Should one follow a “Conciliatory Norm”, demanding, for instance, to lower the confidence in p, split the difference by taking the middle ground between the opponent’s belief and one’s own on the issue, or to suspend one’s judgment on p?"
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-30",
        "studyId": "N044",
        "text": {
          "en": "Or should one rather […] keep the same belief with the same confidence as before […]?",
          "zh": "还是应该[…]保持相同的信念和与之前相同的确信程度[…]？",
          "ko": "아니면 […] 이전과 같은 믿음을 같은 정도의 확신으로 유지해야 하는가[…]?"
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Agent-Based Modeling in the Philosophy of Science",
          "section": "2.5 Peer-disagreement in science",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/agent-modeling-philscience/#PeerDisaScie",
          "context": "paragraph beginning “This issue has been discussed”, sentence immediately following passage 29. Exact SEP wording with marked omissions. Presents the alternative of retaining belief and confidence, as a question rather than an endorsed answer. The technical norm label, idiom, and repeated peer label are deferred visibly. “Before” refers to before encountering the disagreement already discussed. Korean and Chinese are assistant translations.",
          "wording": "Or should one rather follow a “Steadfast Norm” demanding to stick to one’s guns and keep the same belief with the same confidence as before encountering a disagreeing peer?"
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-31",
        "studyId": "N045",
        "text": {
          "en": "[If] you and I have arrived at our opinions in response to a substantial body of evidence, and your opinion is a reasonable response to the evidence while mine is not, then you are not required to give equal weight to my opinion and to your own.",
          "zh": "[如果]你和我根据大量证据形成了各自的意见，而你的意见是对证据的合理回应，我的却不是，那么你就不必赋予我的意见和你自己的意见同等的分量。",
          "ko": "[만약] 당신과 내가 상당한 양의 증거를 바탕으로 각자의 의견에 도달했고, 당신의 의견은 그 증거에 대한 합리적인 반응이지만 내 의견은 그렇지 않다면, 당신은 내 의견과 자신의 의견에 같은 무게를 둘 필요가 없다."
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Social Epistemology",
          "section": "3.2 Peer Disagreement",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/#PeerDisa",
          "context": "first sentence of the block quotation attributed to Thomas Kelly (2010: 135), introduced in the paragraph beginning “In a more recent paper”. Full quotation as printed in SEP, including its opening brackets [If]; no omissions. SEP is quoting Kelly here. This presents an argument against giving opinions equal weight regardless of their response to evidence, not a settled verdict for all disagreements. It follows the alternatives in 29–30 by returning to the evidence. Korean and Chinese are assistant translations.",
          "wording": "[If] you and I have arrived at our opinions in response to a substantial body of evidence, and your opinion is a reasonable response to the evidence while mine is not, then you are not required to give equal weight to my opinion and to your own."
        }
      },
      {
        "id": "sep-opening-32",
        "studyId": "N046",
        "text": {
          "en": "Indeed, one might wonder whether you are required to give *any* weight to my opinion in such circumstances. (2010: 135)",
          "zh": "确实，人们可能会问，在这种情况下，你是否有必要赋予我的意见*任何*分量。 (2010: 135)",
          "ko": "실제로, 그런 상황에서 당신이 내 의견에 *조금이라도* 무게를 둘 필요가 있는지 의문을 제기할 수도 있다. (2010: 135)"
        },
        "source": {
          "title": "Social Epistemology",
          "section": "3.2 Peer Disagreement",
          "url": "https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-social/#PeerDisa",
          "context": "second and final sentence of the Kelly block quotation, immediately following passage 31. Full quotation with original emphasis on “any” and the adjacent citation (2010: 135) retained. No omissions. “Such circumstances” refers to the contrast in 31: your opinion responds reasonably to the evidence and mine does not. The sentence raises a question about giving any weight, rather than asserting that no weight is always required. Korean and Chinese are assistant translations.",
          "wording": "Indeed, one might wonder whether you are required to give *any* weight to my opinion in such circumstances. (2010: 135)"
        }
      }
    ],
    "acceptedThrough": 32
  },
  "readingNote": "The current Read mode contains 32 accepted study passages with aligned English, Chinese, and Korean text. Omissions are marked; original English wording and source context are retained. The introduction field preserves the earlier eight-section draft."
}