In this (open access!) paper we argue: commonly accepted scientific norms suggest rules for how cooperating scientists should decide which of their results they ought publish, and judgement aggregation theory gives tools to study how these rules interact. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-017-9887-1/fulltext.html?wt_mc=alerts.TOCjournals …
-
-
Hahaha ... yes. But ...
-
So more seriously, in the paper we are largely considering cases where people have the evidence or arguments before them but don't agree on what's publication worthy, and I am worried that questions of what evidence to gather in the first place introduces its own complexities.
- Show replies
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.