[
Archer, Avery [2021]. “The aim of inquiry”. Disputatio 61: 95–119.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bird, Alexander [2014]. “When is there a group that knows? Scientific knowledge as social knowledge”. In Essays in Collective Epistemology, edited by J. Lackey. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 42–63.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bratman, Michael [2013]. Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bratman, Michael [2014]. “Rational and social agency: Reflections and replies”. In Rational and Social Agency, edited by M. Vargas & G. Yaffe. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 294–343.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Carpenter, Malinda [2009]. “Just How Joint Is Joint Action in Infancy?”. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 380–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01026.x10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01026.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Falbo, Arianna [2023a]. “Inquiring minds want to improve”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 101: 298–312.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Falbo, Arianna [2023b]. “Should epistemology take the zetetic turn?”. Philosophical Studies 180: 2977–3002.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Friedman, Jane (2013). “Question-directed attitudes”. Philosophical Perspectives. 27: 145–74.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Friedman, Jane [2017]. “Why suspend judging”. Noûs 51: 302–26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Friedman, Jane [2019]. “Inquiry and belief”. Nous 53: 296–315.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Friedman, Jane [2020]. “The epistemic and the zetetic”. Philosophical Review 129: 501–36.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Friedman, Jane [2023]. “The aim of inquiry?”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 108: 506–23. 10.1111/phpr.12982
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gilbert, Margaret [1987]. “Modelling Collective Belief”. Synthese 73: 185–204.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gilbert, Margaret [1990]. “Walking together: A paradigmatic social phenomenon”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15: 1–14.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gilbert, Margaret [2014]. Joint Commitment: On How We Make the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gilbert, Margaret [2023]. Life In Groups: How we Think, Feel, and Act Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Gräfenhain, Maria, Carpenter, Malinda, & Tomasello, Michael [2013]. “Three-year-olds’ understanding of the consequences of joint commitments”. PLoS One, 8: e73039.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Habgood-Coote, Joshua [2019]. “Group knowledge, questions, and the division of epistemic labour”. Ergo, an Open Access Journal of Philosophy 6: 20201214. 10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.033
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Habgood-Coote, Joshua [2022]. “Group inquiry”. Erkenntnis. 87: 1099–123. 10.1007/s10670-020-00232-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hakli, Raul [2006]. “Group beliefs and the distinction between belief and acceptance”. Cognitive Systems Research 7: 286–297. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2005.11.013
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hakli, Raul [2007]. “On the possibility of group knowledge without belief”. Social Epistemology 21: 249–66. DOI: 10.1080/02691720701685581
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kelp, Christoph [2014]. “Two for the knowledge goal of inquiry”. American Philosophical Quarterly 51: 227–32.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kelp, Christoph [2020]. “Theory of inquiry”. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. DOI: 10.1111/phpr.12719
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Khachatryan, V. et al., CMS Collaboration, LHCb Collaboration [2015]. “Observation of the rare BS0→ µ+µ- decay from the combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data”. Nature 522: 68–72. 10.1038/nature14474
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kitcher, Philip [1990]. “The division of cognitive labor”. The Journal of Philosophy 87: 5–22. DOI: 10.2307/2026796
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Lackey, Jennifer [2020]. The Epistemology of Groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mathiesen, Kay [2006]. “The epistemic features of group belief”. Episteme 2: 161–75. DOI: 10.3366/epi.2005.2.3.161
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mathiesen, Kay [2007]. “Introduction to special issue of social epistemology on “collective knowledge and collective knowers”. Social Epistemology 21: 209-16. DOI: 10.1080/02691720701673934
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Meijers, Anthonie [2002]. “Collective agents and cognitive attitudes”. ProtoSociology 16: 70–85. DOI: 10.5840/protosociology20021621
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Meijers, Anthonie [2003]. “Why accept collective beliefs? A reply to Gilbert”. ProtoSociology. 18: 377–88. DOI: 10.5840/protosociology200318/1915
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Millson, Jared A. [2020]. “Seeking confirmation: A puzzle for norms of inquiry”. Analysis 80: 683–93.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Palmira, Michele [2018]. “Inquiry and the doxastic attitudes” Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01955-3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Peirce, Charles S. [1877]. “The fixation of belief”. Reprinted in Philosophical Writings of Peirce, edited by Justus Buchler. Dover, 1955, reprinted in 2016.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rakoczy, Hannes [2007]. “Play, games, and the development of collective intentionality”. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2007: 53–67. DOI: 10.1002/cd.182
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Searle, John [1990]. “Collective intentions and actions”. In Intentions in Communication, edited by Philip R. Cohen, Jerry Morgan & Martha Pollack. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press: 401–15.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smith, Nicholas [2020] “Simply finding answers, or the entirety of inquiry while standing on one foot”. Disputatio 57. DOI: 10.2478/disp-2020-0008
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smith, Nicholas [2023]. “That’s not double checking’, or ‘there’s only a Problem if You Make One”’. Philosophia : 1–9.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Smith, Thomas H. [2015]. “Shared agency on Gilbert and deep continuity”. Journal of Social Ontology 1. DOI: 10.1515/jso-2014-0045.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thoma, Johanna [2015]. “The epistemic division of labor revisited”. Philosophy of Science 82: 454–72. DOI: 10.1086/681768
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Thorstad, David [2022]. “There are no epistemic norms of inquiry”. Synthese 200: .DOI: 10.1007/s11229-022-03896-4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tomasello, Michael [2016]. A natural history of human morality. New York: Harvard University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tomasello, Michael [2018]. A Natural History of Human Thinking. New York: Harvard University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tomasello, Michael & Carpenter, Malinda [2007]. “Shared intentionality”. Developmental Science 10: 121–5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00573.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tomasello, Michael, Carpenter, Malinda, Call, Josep, Behne, Tanya, & Moll, Henrike [2005]. “Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28: 675–691.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tuomela, Raimo [1992]. “Group beliefs”. Synthese, 91: 285–318. DOI: 10.1007/bf00413570
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tuomela, Raimo [2004]. “Group knowledge analyzed”. Episteme 1: 109–27. DOI: 10.3366/epi.2004.1.2.109
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tuomela, Raimo [2007]. The Philosophy of Sociality: The Shared Point of View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Warneken, Felix, Gräfenhain, Maria, & Tomasello, Michael [2012]. “Collaborative partner or social tool? New evidence for young children’s understanding of joint intentions in collaborative activities”. Developmental Science 15: 54–61. 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01107.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Weisberg, Michael, & Muldoon, Ryan [2009]. “Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor”. Philosophy of Science 76: 225–52. DOI: 10.1086/644786
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Williamson, Timothy [2002]. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/019925656X.001.0001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Woodard, Elise [2022]. “Why double-check?”. Episteme 21: 644–67. DOI: 10.1017/epi.2022.22
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Wray, K. Brad [2001]. “Collective belief and acceptance”. Synthese 129: 319–33.
]Search in Google Scholar
