Collins, Evans, and Reyes-Galindo develop the concept of interactional expertise into the idea of virtual diversity. They thereby provide a strong case against the epistemic barriers established by identity politics. This commentary questions, however, whether virtual diversity can incorporate the critique of institutional power that Wynne has argued is at the center of tensions between lay publics and scientific establishments. The commentary argues for a critical theory of science, as suggested by Doppelt on the basis of his normative interpretation of Kuhnian incommensurability.
CollinsH. (2023b). The most important thing about science is values. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 48(2), 264–275.
8.
CollinsH. (2024). Establishing veritocracy: Society, truth and science. Transcultural Psychiatry, 61(5), 783–794.
9.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.
10.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2007). Rethinking expertise. University of Chicago Press.
11.
CollinsH.EvansR. (2016). A thousand words is worth a picture. Social Studies of Science, 46(2), 312–324.
12.
CollinsH.PinchT. (1998[1993]). The Golem (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
13.
CollinsH.EvansR.Reyes-GalindoL. (2025). Virtual diversity: Resolving the tension between the wider culture and the institution of science. Social Studies of Science, 03063127241263609.
14.
DoppeltG. (1978). Kuhn’s epistemological relativism: An interpretation and defense. Inquiry21(1–4): 33–86.
15.
DoppeltG. (2008). Values in science. In CurdM.PsillosS. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (2nd ed., pp. 330–342). Routledge.
16.
EpsteinS. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. University of California Press.
17.
GouldnerA. W. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. Basic Books.
18.
HabermasJ. (1971). Toward a rational society: Student protest, science, and politics. Beacon Press.
19.
HessD. J. (2013). Neoliberalism and the history of STS theory: Toward a reflexive sociology. Social Epistemology, 27(2), 177–193.
20.
JasanoffS. ed. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (1st ed.). Routledge.
21.
MehanH.WoodH. (1975). The morality of ethnomethodology. Theory and Society, 2(4), 509–530.
22.
MertonR. K. (1972). Insiders and outsiders: A chapter in the sociology of knowledge. American Journal of Sociology, 78(1), 9–47.
23.
MertonR. K. (1973[1942]). The normative structure of science. In MertonR. K.StorerN. W. (Eds.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago Press.
24.
MooreK. (2008). Disrupting science: Social movements, American scientists, and the politics of the military, 1945–1975. Princeton University Press.
25.
MukerjiC. (1989). A fragile power: Scientists and the state. Princeton University Press.
26.
MulkayM. J. (1976). Norms and ideology in science. Social science information, 15(4–5), 637–656.
27.
SovacoolB. K.BrossmannB. (2013). Fantastic futures and three American energy transitions. Science as Culture, 22(2), 204–212.
28.
TurnerS. (2014). American sociology: From pre-disciplinary to post-normal. Palgrave Macmillan.
WelshI. (2000). Mobilising modernity: The nuclear moment. Routledge.
31.
WelshI.WynneB. (2013). Science, scientism and imaginaries of publics in the UK: Passive objects, incipient threats. Science as Culture, 22(4), 540–566.
32.
WynneB. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281–304.
33.
WynneB. (2003). Seasick on the third wave? Subverting the hegemony of propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002). Social Studies of Science, 33(3), 401–417.
34.
WynneB. (2014). Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 60–70.
35.
ZammitoJ. H. (2004). A nice derangement of epistemes: Post-positivism in the study of science from Quine to Latour. University of Chicago Press.
