We have tried to be clear about what can be claimed to have been shown and what can't and it mostly comes down to being able to get the kind of stuff published that we did get published by using existing scholarship to justify it and following reviewers' directions. That's all.
Possibly, we could have put out a secret call and formed a huge team including people from every discipline and co-ordinated a project which addressed knowledge production & peer review in all of them all at once. But I don't think it is a problem not to do that.
-
-
Perhaps you can think of an area of weakness in peer review in physics? If people tested it, would it a reasonable criticism to complain they didn't also address postmodernism in gender studies, replication in social sciences, pressure from corporations in medical science?
-
I think if there were an expectation that people cannot investigate problems in their own field without knowing about & also addressing problems in every other field at the same time, it would make it nearly impossible to ever address any problems.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.