has me thinking though i wonder if as time passes more and more of the things that could be Understood are contextual infohazards like certain things have to be True for societies of different granularities to function in their extant form
-
-
Show this thread
-
peer review has many tacit functions, expect an important one is the suppression of Heresy usually this is done for the benefit of incumbent career scientists, sometimes for the advantage of an entire field, perhaps other times with the aim of maintaining a broader status quo
Show this thread -
anyway Kuhn was right and Science is socially constructed and this probably constrains science at several levels; and this has always been true, but the postwar institutionalization of Science has probably tightened these constraints
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's odd that philosophers of science have never, as far as I know, taken peer review very seriously as a part of the justification of knowledge, and yet it has become the default standard of scientific proof for almost everyone else.
-
qui bono u know
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
peer reviewing isn't about efficacy
-
exactly
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.