The Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration: History, Philosophy, and Culture
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Algorithms, Inference, and Visualization,
- Foundations,
- Collaborations,
- Siting, Education, In- and Outreach.
2. Algorithms, Inference, and Visualization
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Robustness and Reliability of Imaging
2.3. Science and Aesthetics in Black Hole Imaging
3. Foundations
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Challenges for the Applicability of Theory to Astrophysical Black Holes: Two Examples
3.2.1. No-Hair Theorems
3.2.2. Mass, Charge, and Angular Momentum in
3.3. Theory and Observation: Bridging the Gap
4. Collaborations
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Knowledge Formation and Governance: Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up
4.3. Knowledge Formation: Differences of Opinion
4.4. Governance
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | A very helpful framing of the history of general relativity can be found in [2]. On Einstein’s special theory of relativity, focusing on his redefinition of simultaneity, see [3]. On the eclipse expedition of 1919 and its surround—as a historical example of observational history, see [4,5]. On Einstein’s own trajectory to general relativity, see [6]. |
2 | On the philosophically-inflected work of Einstein, see, as an entrée into the literature [8,9,10,11,12]; and for a launch into the philosophy in Einstein’s physics see [9,13]. Of books on the philosophy of spacetime, Earman’s have been a grounding point of many discussions [14,15], as has the (physics-based) lapidary take on general relativity by Wald [16]. For a fine example of a more recent conceptual analysis, see [17]. |
3 | On the long-term history of relativity as it opened up into the science of black holes in particular, see [18]. |
4 | See ([20], Sections 4.4 and 9) for discussion of “dynamic imaging”, which results in a movie of the source (i.e., a series of images or frames) instead of a single image. |
5 | Two excellent doctoral dissertations offer fine-grained analysis of the mountaintop dispute, and include a wide range of further references. Swanner [22] focuses on the triply conflicting astronomical, environmental and indigenous narratives that collided at Mt. Graham, Mauna Kea, and Kitt Peak; Salazar [23] addresses the Kanaka rights claim, specifically addressing the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), in opposition to a framing of the dispute as one of “stakeholders” or a “multicultural” ideal. Swanner focuses on Mauna Kea in a subsequent article, also on the TMT [24]. For an important current Hawaiian-led impact assessment of the TMT including additional references, see Kahanamoku et al. [25]. Many further references across a wide cross-disciplinary range including archaeology, biology, among others, will be given in a subsequent paper directed toward siting. |
6 | |
7 | If “secure” is understood in terms of degrees of belief (expressed by some function satisfying the Kolmogorov axioms of probability), then “boost in confidence” can be understood as (something like) the statement that the conjunction confirms R to a greater extent than alone, for any i; where R is the result, and are lines of evidence. |
8 | Here we retain Orzack and Sober’s terminology, describing models as “true” or “correct”. Note, however, that this terminology is controversial (see Section 3.3) with some recent philosophical treatments of models suggesting that models themselves are neither true nor false. |
9 | On the contrast between inclusive and selective instrumental demonstration in particle physics, see Galison [45]. |
10 | Or, in the context of a positive cosmological constant (see Section 3.2.2), perhaps instead one assumes a Kerr-de Sitter (or Kerr–Newman–de Sitter) metric. A good recent discussion of black holes with positive cosmological constant is in ([82], ch.5). One way to give these metrics is by writing them in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates, including some functions and , which are functions of radius, spin, mass, and . The mass read off from such a solution is the same as the mass of the Kerr metric. |
11 | ADM stands for Richard Arnowitt, Stanley Deser and Charles W. Misner, authors of the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity known as the ADM formalism, within which the ADM quantities are defined. |
12 | This perspective also has implications for how we think about the use of robustness reasoning discussed in Section 2.2. |
13 | For instance, it is well known that the more authors a scientific paper has, the more conservative the claims in the paper may be, and the longer (on average) the paper, as well as its title, tend to be [96]. Single-authored blogs tend to be more readable than blogs authored by two authors, as measured by the Flesch readability score, despite no difference in average sentence length [97]. If this can be extrapolated to journal papers with large numbers of authors, the ngEHT may want to experiment with breaking up papers into separate papers, each of which is written by a smaller set of authors, and/or for the writing to be done by the smallest possible number of people with other members of the project providing input in other ways/at other stages (e.g., everyone is involved in outlining the structure of the paper and the eventual editing, but not in the writing process in between). The latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a model of such a practice. A first draft by one of their working groups (WG1) was written by just the working group, comprising 240 scientists (Assessment Report [AR] 1 WG1 IPCC, 2021). After this, a much larger number of scientists from around the world provided comments that were incorporated into subsequent drafts. The ngEHT could consider writing papers following this model, scaled down according to the smaller number of scientists involved. |
14 | |
15 | On the role of ’sigma’s’ in modern physics, see [102]. |
16 | |
17 | Work in judgment aggregation theory highlights the impact these relations can have on the consistency of the group attitude, see [106]. |
18 | See [107]’s distinction between the “commitment” and “distributed” models of group knowledge. |
19 | The distinction between belief and acceptance can also help us conceptualize the role of idealization in science, as discussed in Section 3.3, see, for instance, [115]. |
20 | |
21 | Interesting in this regard is the current ngEHT analysis challenge, where part of the collaboration creates a training set from simulated signals with noise added to them (and potentially also some fake signals), with another part of the collaboration honing their analysis tools on this training data without knowing how it was created. |
22 | On the LIGO Scientific Collaboration Charter [161]. |
References
- Newton, I. Newton’s Scholium on Time, Space, Place and Motion. In Philosohiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica; Motte, A., Translator; University of California Press: Berkely, CA, USA, 1934; Available online: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-stm/scholium.html (accessed on 23 August 2022).
- Eisenstaedt, J. The Curious History of Relativity: How Einstein’s Theory of Gravity Was Lost and Found Again; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Galison, P. Einstein’s Clocks, Poincaré’s Maps. Empires of Time; W.W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kennefick, D. No Shadow of a Doubt. The 1919 Eclipse That Confirmed Einstein’s Theory of Relativity; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Stanley, M. Einstein’s War. How Relativity Triumphed Amid the Vicious Nationalism of World War I; Dutton: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Renn, J. Albert Einstein: Chief Engineer of the Universe. Documents of a Life’s Pathway; Wiley-VCH: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Einstein, A. Remarks to the Essays Appearing in this Collective Volume. In Albert Einstein Philosopher-Scientist; Schilpp, P.A., Ed.; MJF Books: New York, NY, USA, 1970; pp. 663–688. [Google Scholar]
- Holton, G. Mach, Einstein, and the search for reality. In Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought; Harvard University Press: Camrbidge, MA, USA, 1988; pp. 237–277. [Google Scholar]
- Ryckman, T. The Reign of Relativity. Philosophy in Physics 1915–1925; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- van Dongen, J. Einstein’s Unification; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, M.; Lehner, C. The Cambridge Companion to Einstein; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Howard, D.A.; Giovanelli, M. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Chapter Einstein’s Philosophy of Science; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Norton, J.D. Philosophy in Einstein’s science. In Idealist Alternatives to Materialist Philosophies of Science; MacEwen, P., Ed.; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 95–127. [Google Scholar]
- Earman, J. World Enough and Space-Time: Absolute versus Relational Theories of Space and Time; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Earman, J. Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Wald, R.M. Space, Time, and Gravity: The theory of the Big Bang and Black Holes; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Curiel, E. The many definitions of a black hole. Nat. Astron. 2019, 3, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thorne, K. Black Holes and Time Warps. Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy; W.W. Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 event horizon telescope results. IV. Imaging the central supermassive black hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019, 875, L4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. III. Imaging of the Galactic Center Supermassive Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2022, 930, L14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daston, L.; Galison, P. Objectivity; Zone Books: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Swanner, L.A. Mountains of Controversy: Narrative and the Making of Contested Landscapes in Postwar American Astronomy. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Salazar, J.A. Multicultural Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Struggle in Hawai’i: The Politics of Astronomy on Mauna a Wākea. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Swanner, L.A. Instruments of Science or Conquest? Neocolonialism and Modern American Astronomy. Hist. Stud. Nat. Sci. 2017, 47, 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahanamoku, S.; Alegado, R.A.; Kagawa-Viviani, A.; Kamelamela, K.L.; Kamai, B.; Walkowicz, L.M.; Prescod-Weinstein, C.; Reyes, M.A.D.L.; Neilson, H. A Native Hawaiian-led summary of the current impact of constructing the Thirty Meter Telescope on Maunakea. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2001.00970. [Google Scholar]
- Nichols, T. Constructing Stillness: Theorization, Discovery, Interrogation, and Negotiation of the Expanded Laboratory of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Nichols, T. Hidden in Plain Sight: Merging the Physics Laboratory with the Surrounding Environment. Unpublished manuscript, submitted.
- Schupbach, J.N. Robustness analysis as explanatory reasoning. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 2018, 69, 275–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gueguen, M. On Robustness in Cosmological Simulations. Philos. Sci. 2020, 87, 1197–1208. [Google Scholar]
- Baushev, A.; del Valle, L.; Campusano, L.; Escala, A.; Muñoz, R.; Palma, G. Cusps in the center of galaxies: A real conflict with observations or a numerical artefact of cosmological simulations? J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2017, 2017, 042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Orzack, S.H.; Sober, E. A Critical Assessment of Levins’s The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology (1966). Q. Rev. Biol. 1993, 68, 533–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levins, R. The Strategy of Model Building in Population Biology. Am. Sci. 1966, 54, 421–431. [Google Scholar]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 event horizon telescope results. I. The shadow of the supermassive black hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019, 875, L1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 event horizon telescope results. II. Array and instrumentation. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019, 875, L2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 event horizon telescope results. III. Data processing and calibration. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019, 875, L3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 event horizon telescope results. V. Physical origin of the asymmetric ring. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019, 875, L5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. The Shadow and Mass of the Central Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019, 875, L6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2021, 910, L12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VIII. Magnetic Field Structure near The Event Horizon. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2021, 910, L13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2022, 930, L12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. II. EHT and Multiwavelength Observations, Data Processing, and Calibration. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2022, 930, L13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Variability, Morphology, and Black Hole Mass. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2022, 930, L15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. V. Testing Astrophysical Models of the Galactic Center Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2022, 930, L16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akiyama, K.; et al. [The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration] First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metric. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2022, 930, L17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galison, P. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Kemp, M. Visualizations: The Nature Book of Art and Science; University of California Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Bigg, C. Travelling Scientist, Circulating Images and the Making of the Modern Scientific Journal: Norman Lockyer’s Visual Communication of Astrophysics in Nature. Nuncius 2015, 30, 675–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bigg, C. The view from here, there and nowhere? Situating the observer in the planetarium and in the solar system. Early Pop. Vis. Cult. 2017, 15, 204–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkins, J. Six Stories from the End of Representation: Images in Painting, Photography, Astronomy, Microscopy, Particle Physics, and Quantum Mechanics, 1980–2000; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Fineman, M.; Saunders, B. Apollo’s Muse: The Moon in the Age of Photography; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hentschel, K.; Whittmann, A.D. The Role of Visual Representations in Astronomy: History and Research Practice: Contributions to a Colloquium Held at Göttingen in 1999; Deutsch: Thun Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Hentschel, K. Mapping the Spectrum: Techniques of Visual Representation in Research and Teaching; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, D. Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lane, K.M.D. Geographies of Mars; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Messeri, L. Placing Outer Space: An Earthly Ethnography of Other Worlds; Duke University Press: Durham, UK; London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Nall, J. News From Mars: Mass Media and the Forging of a New Astronomy, 1860–1910; University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Nasim, O. The ‘Landmark’ and ‘Groundwork’ of stars: John Herschel, photography and the drawing of nebulae. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A 2011, 42, 67–84. [Google Scholar]
- Nasim, O. Observing by Hand: Sketching the Nebulae in the Nineteenth Century; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Schaffer, S. On Astronomical Drawing. In Picturing Science, Producing Art; Galison, P.L., Jones, C.A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Pang, A.S.K. ‘Stars should henceforth register themselves’: Astrophotography at the early Lick Observatory. Br. J. Hist. Sci. 1997, 30, 177–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, M. Merging the Sun and the Stars: The hybrid images of the 1919 eclipse. In Proceedings of the Presentation, American Physical Society Meeting, New York, NY, USA, 10 April 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Tai, C.; van der Steen, B.; van Dongen, J. Anton Pannekoek: Ways of Viewing Science and Society; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Vertesi, J. Seeing Like a Rover: How Robots, Teams, and Images Craft Knowledge of Mars; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Godfrey, B.B. Mach’s Principle, the Kerr Metric, and Black-Hole Physics. Phys. Rev. D 1970, 1, 2721. [Google Scholar]
- Bardeen, J.M. Timelike and Null Geodesics in the Kerr Metric. In Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus); DeWitt, C., DeWitt, B.S., Eds.; Gordon & Breach: New York, NY, USA, 1973; Volume 23, pp. 215–239. [Google Scholar]
- Cunningham, C.T.; Bardeen, J.M. The optical appearance of a star orbiting an extreme Kerr black hole. Astrophys. J. 1973, 183, 237–264. [Google Scholar]
- Luminet, J.P. Image of a spherical black Hole with thin accretion disk. Astron. Astrophys. 1979, 75, 228–235. [Google Scholar]
- Falcke, H.; Melia, F.; Agol, E. Viewing the Shadow of the Black Hole at the Galactic Center. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2000, 528, L13–L16. [Google Scholar]
- Fukue, J.; Yokoyama, T. Color photographs of an accretion disk around a black hole. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 1988, 40, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
- Schaffer, S. Astronomers mark time: Discipline and the personal equation. Sci. Context 1988, 2, 115–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanley, M. Where Is That Moon, Anyway? The Problem of Interpreting Historical Solar Eclipse Observations. In Raw Data are an Oxymoron; Gitelman, L., Ed.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 77–88. [Google Scholar]
- Shapere, D. The Concept of Observation in Science and Philosophy. Philos. Sci. 1982, 49, 485–525. [Google Scholar]
- Pinch, T. Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidential Significance of Observational Reports in Physics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 1985, 15, 3–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skulberg, E. The Event Horizon as a Vanishing Point: A History of the First Image of a Black Hole Shadow from Observation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Issaoun, S.; (Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands). Interview by Emilie Skulberg, 12 September 2019.
- Pang, A.S.K. The Social Event of the Season: Solar Eclipse Expeditions and Victorian Culture. Isis 1993, 84, 252–277. [Google Scholar]
- Tai, C. Left Radicalism and the Milky Way: Connecting the Scientific and Socialist Virtues of Anton Pannekoek. Hist. Stud. Nat. Sci. 2017, 47, 200–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kessler, E.; Galison, P. To See the Unseeable. Aperture 2019, 237, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
- Kessler, E.A. Picturing the Cosmos: Hubble Space Telescope Images and the Astronomical Sublime; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Clarke, V. Universe: Exploring the Astronomical World; Phaidon: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Booth, I. Black-hole boundaries. Can. J. Phys. 2005, 83, 1073–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chruściel, P.T. Geometry of Black Holes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Chruściel, P.T.; Costa, J.L.; Heusler, M. Stationary black holes: Uniqueness and beyond. Living Rev. Relativ. 2012, 15, 1–73. [Google Scholar]
- Aghanim, N.; Akrami, Y.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Ballardini, M.; Banday, A.J.; Barreiro, R.B.; Bartolo, N.; Basak, S.; et al. Planck 2018 results. Astron. Astrophys. 2020, 641, A6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schneider, M.D. Empty Space and the (Positive) Cosmological Constant. PhilSci Archive. 2022. Available online: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21076/ (accessed on 1 November 2022).
- Ashtekar, A.; Bahrami, S. Asymptotics with a positive cosmological constant. IV. The no-incoming radiation condition. Phys. Rev. D 2019, 100, 024042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashtekar, A.; Bonga, B.; Kesavan, A. Asymptotics with a positive cosmological constant: I. Basic framework. Class. Quantum Gravity 2014, 32, 025004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashtekar, A.; Bonga, B.; Kesavan, A. Gravitational Waves from Isolated Systems: Surprising Consequences of a Positive Cosmological Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 051101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ashtekar, A. Implications of a positive cosmological constant for general relativity. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2017, 80, 102901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wallace, D. Isolated systems and their symmetries, part II: Local and global symmetries of field theories. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 2022, 92, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bokulich, A.; Parker, W. Data models, representation and adequacy-for-purpose. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 2021, 11, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Cartwright, N.; Hardie, J.; Montuschi, E.; Soleiman, M.; Thresher, A. The Tangle of Science: Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Parker, W.S. Model Evaluation: An Adequacy-for-Purpose View. Philos. Sci. 2020, 87, 457–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stein, H. Yes, but... Some Skeptical Remarks on Realism and Anti-Realism. Dialectica 1989, 43, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitsch, C. An Examination of Some Aspects of Howard Stein’s Work. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 2019, 66, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewison, G.; Hartley, J. What is in a title? Numbers of words and presence of colons. Scientometrics 2005, 63, 341–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartley, J.; Cabanac, G. Are two authors better than one? Can writing in pairs affect the readability of academic blogs? Scientometrics 2016, 109, 2119–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daston, L.; Müller Wille, S.; Sibum, H.O. A History of Facts; Max Planck Institute for the History of Science: Berlin, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Poovey, M. A History of the Modern Fact; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- ten Hagen, S.L. How “Facts” Shaped Modern Disciplines: The Fluid Concept of Fact and the Common Origins of German Physics and Historiography. Hist. Stud. Nat. Sci. 2019, 49, 300–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- de Waal, E.; ten Hagen, S.L. The Concept of Fact in German Physics around 1900: A Comparison between Mach and Einstein. Phys. Perspect. 2020, 22, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franklin, A. Shifting Standards. Experiments in Particle Physics in the Twentieth Century; University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Galison, P. Philosophy of the Shadow. 2019. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BofWFoiKARQ (accessed on 23 January 2023).
- Galison, P. (Director) The Edge of All We Know. Netflix, 2020.
- Galison, P.; Jones, C.A. Factory, laboratory, studio: Dispersing sites of production. In The Architecture of Science; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999; pp. 497–540. [Google Scholar]
- List, C. The Theory of Judgment Aggregation: An Introductory Review. Synthese 2012, 187, 179–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bird, A. When Is There a Group that Knows?: Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject. In Essays in Collective Epistemology; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 42–63. [Google Scholar]
- Quinton, A. Social Objects. Proc. Aristot. Soc. 1976, 76, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, M. On Social Facts; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- List, C.; Pettit, P. Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wray, K.B. Collective Belief Furthermore, Acceptance. Synthese 2001, 129, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, M.; Pilchman, D. Belief, Acceptance, and What Happens in Groups: Some Methodological Considerations. In Essays in Collective Epistemology; Lackey, J., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Dang, H.; Bright, L.K. Scientific Conclusions Need Not Be Accurate, Justified, or Believed by Their Authors. Synthese 2021, 199, 8187–8203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dethier, C. Science, Assertion, and the Common Ground. Synthese 2022, 200, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elgin, C. True Enough; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Dellsén, F. Consensus versus Unanimity: Which Carries More Weight? Br. J. Philos. Sci. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galison, P. Mirror symmetry: Persons, values, and objects. In Growing Explanations: Historical Explanations on Recent Science; Wise, M.N., Ed.; Duke University Press: Durham, NC, USA, 2004; pp. 23–63. [Google Scholar]
- van Dongen, J. String theory, Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A 2021, 89, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenspan, L. Holography, application, and string theory’s changing nature. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. A 2022, 94, 72–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulme, M. Lessons from the IPCC: Do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative. In Future Directions for Scientific Advice in Whitehall; Doubleday, R., Wilsdon, J., Eds.; Centre for Science and Policy Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 142–147. [Google Scholar]
- List, C.; Goodin, R.E. Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem. J. Political Philos. 2001, 9, 277–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dietrich, F.; Spiekermann, K. Jury Theorems. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2022 ed.; Zalta, E.N., Ed.; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Lewandowsky, S.; Gignac, G.E.; Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oreskes, N.; Conway, E.M. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming; Bloomsbury Publishing: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bright, L.K.; Dang, H.; Heesen, R. A role for judgment aggregation in coauthoring scientific papers. Erkenntnis 2017, 83, 231–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marcoci, A.; Nguyen, J. Judgement aggregation in scientific collaborations: The case for waiving expertise. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A 2020, 84, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beatty, J.; Moore, A. Should We Aim for Consensus? Episteme 2010, 7, 198–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, S. The Elusiveness of Consensus in Science. PSA Proc. Bienn. Meet. Philos. Sci. Assoc. 1986, 1986, 106–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weatherall, J.O.; O’Connor, C. Conformity in scientific networks. Synthese 2021, 198, 7257–7278. [Google Scholar]
- Fazelpour, S.; Steel, D. Diversity, Trust, and Conformity: A Simulation Study. Philos. Sci. 2022, 89, 209–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, H. Do Collaborators in Science Need to Agree? Philos. Sci. 2019, 86, 1029–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zollman, K.J. The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis 2010, 72, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Currie, A. Existential risk, creativity & well-adapted science. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A 2019, 76, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, M.D. Creativity in the social epistemology of science. Philos. Sci. 2021, 88, 882–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parker, W. Values and uncertainties in climate prediction, revisited. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part A 2014, 46, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Longino, H.E. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Wylie, A. Why Standpoint Matters. In Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology; Figueroa, R., Harding, S.G., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 26–48. [Google Scholar]
- Mills, C. White Ignorance. In Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance; Sullivan, S., Tuana, N., Eds.; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 11–38. [Google Scholar]
- Du Bois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folk; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J. Epistemic Advantage on the Margin. Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 2022, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Longino, H.E. The Fate of Knowledge; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; O’Connor, C. How Should We Promote Transient Diversity in Science? Synthese 2023, 201, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zollman, K.J. The communication structure of epistemic communities. Philos. Sci. 2007, 74, 574–587. [Google Scholar]
- Lazer, D.; Friedman, A. The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Adm. Sci. Q. 2007, 52, 667–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fang, C.; Lee, J.; Schilling, M.A. Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2010, 21, 625–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galison, P.; Newman, W.E. Interview with Peter Galison: On Method. Technol.|Archit.+ Des. 2021, 5, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wylie, A.; Gonzalez, S.L.; Ngandali, Y.; Lagos, S.; Miller, H.K.; Fitzhugh, B.; Haakanson, S.; Lape, P. Collaborations in Indigenous and Community-Based Archaeology: Preserving the Past Together. Assoc. Wash. Archaeol. 2020, 19, 15–33. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, M.B.; Glennon, B.M.; Murciano-Goroff, R.; Berkes, E.G.; Weinberg, B.A.; Lane, J.I. Women are Credited Less in Science than are Men. Nature 2022, 608, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarsons, H.; Gërxhani, K.; Reuben, E.; Schram, A. Gender differences in recognition for group work. J. Political Econ. 2021, 129, 101–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, H.; O’Connor, C. Discrimination and collaboration in science. Philos. Sci. 2018, 85, 380–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ritson, S. Something from Nothing: ‘Non-discovery’ and Transformations in High Energy Experimental Physics at the Large Hadron Collider. In Aesthetics of Experiments; Ivanova, M., Murphy, A., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Merz, M.; Sorgner, H. Organizational complexity in big science: Strategies and practices. Synthese 2022, 200, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritson, S. Creativity and modeling the measurement process of the Higgs self-coupling at the LHC and HL-LHC. Synthese 2021, 199, 11887–11911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorgner, H. Constructing ‘Do-Able’Dissertations in Collaborative Research: Alignment Work and Distinction in Experimental High-Energy Physics Settings. Sci. Technol. Stud. 2022, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalli, R.; Howey, R.; Wintergrün, D. The dynamics of collaboration networks and the history of general relativity, 1925–1970. Scientometrics 2020, 122, 1129–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lalli, R.; Howey, R.; Wintergrün, D. The Socio-Epistemic Networks of General Relativity, 1925–1970. In The Renaissance of General Relativity in Context; Blum, A.S., Lalli, R., Renn, J., Eds.; Einstein Studies; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 15–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wüthrich, A. Characterizing a collaboration by its communication structure. Synthese, accepted.
- Morgan, M.G. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 7176–7184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burgman, M.A. Trusting Judgements: How to Get the Best Out of Experts; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Vertesi, J. Shaping Science: Organizations, Decisions, and Culture on NASA’s Teams; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- LIGO Scientific Collaboration Charter, 13 April 2020, LIGO–M2000029-v3. Available online: https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0166/M2000029/003/M2000029-v3.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2022).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Galison, P.; Doboszewski, J.; Elder, J.; Martens, N.C.M.; Ashtekar, A.; Enander, J.; Gueguen, M.; Kessler, E.A.; Lalli, R.; Lesourd, M.; et al. The Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration: History, Philosophy, and Culture. Galaxies 2023, 11, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies11010032
Galison P, Doboszewski J, Elder J, Martens NCM, Ashtekar A, Enander J, Gueguen M, Kessler EA, Lalli R, Lesourd M, et al. The Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration: History, Philosophy, and Culture. Galaxies. 2023; 11(1):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies11010032
Chicago/Turabian StyleGalison, Peter, Juliusz Doboszewski, Jamee Elder, Niels C. M. Martens, Abhay Ashtekar, Jonas Enander, Marie Gueguen, Elizabeth A. Kessler, Roberto Lalli, Martin Lesourd, and et al. 2023. "The Next Generation Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration: History, Philosophy, and Culture" Galaxies 11, no. 1: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies11010032