I’m not convinced. From a librarian’s point of “world view”, Knowledge is created through conversation. From a scientist’s point of “world view”, conversation creates questions, ideas, new threads that might lead to the start of building new knowledge domain. The conversation part is important, but knowledge is not created through conversation.
I think we should clarify some terms. Many might hold created knowledge to a high bar of “new knowledge” where it is new to a group or the whole. This is often cited as the knowledge of discovery. However, in conversation theory, and as used here, knowledge created is just new to the individual. So the first time a first grader learns that 1+1=2, they have created knowledge.
This actually can also apply to scientists. Many a time has a scientist made a discovery, new knowledge, only to find out it has already been discovered in another area or by another person…many a Nobel Prize has been awarded to multiple people for a single discovery, and not because they worked together.
Does the scientist require different forms of evidence to convince themselves of soothing, in essence setting their own conversational bar higher? Possibly for publication, or making a professional statement, but there are plenty of things that a scientist believes true without such evidence.