How to think about shared norms and pluralism without circularity: A reply to Anna Leuschner.

Anna Leuschner argues that there is problematic circularity in Helen Longino's approach that postulates the existence of some shared norms as a necessary precondition for well-functioning pluralistic communities. As an alternative, Leuschner proposes to approach the establishing of more pluralistic communities through political means on a case-by-case basis, taking relevant epistemic and political factors into account. In this paper, I argue that there is an alternative understanding of norms that avoids circularity. I do so by drawing on Isabelle Peschard's discussion of shared practice. I go on to show that norms, so understood, are important in the cases where a political decision may not alone be sufficient for establishing a successful community. Specifically, I discuss pluralistic communities that include laypersons in possession of relevant expertise as an example. • The paper responds to Leuschner's criticism of circularity in Longino's account. • Thinking about norms in terms of shared normative practice avoids circularity. • Cultivating shared norms is crucial for communities that include laypersons. • A successful collaboration in climate science provides an example of shared practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]