I know we go on about how complex all this, but do any of my social epistemology of science friends not think (all things considered, best guess given current knowledge, etc) that rewarding replications isn't a slam dunk piece of policy advice? #philosophy https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-017-07325-2?WT.mc_id=FBK_NA_1711_FHEDREPLICATIONTRACKING_PORTFOLIO …
-
Not an S.E.S., but is there a risk that this could decrease epistemic diversity - and have the kind of effects that worry Zollman et al? A (small) benefit of the priority rule is that it seems to incentivise mavericks to keep doing weird stuff, no?
Ah interesting! Please say more. I read this as saying people should be able to claim priority on a new class of things: Informative Replications. This strikes me as more akin to start upping the reward for book reviews than for changing the basic means of distributing credit.
-
-
It's really a marginal (and potentially v. wrong!) point: in a fixed population, the more credit you assign to experiments that replicate initially promising methods/theories, the less incentive there is to explore other methods/theories/hypotheses.
-
Of course, the network effect of this might be counterbalanced by the additional info you get about the actual viability of the initially promising method/theory. Would be a cool thing to model!
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.