There were some good threads on the visionlist about this, with discussions about whether to scrap peer review or not about 4 years ago. Lots of debate, no resolution. The older folks in our field tended to be more conservative as you'd expect.
-
-
That’s a great point that always jumps at me when reading especially philosophy of science. I see lots of empirical claims, never tested, accepted as is. What an incredibly vast domain full of research questions.
-
Tbh that’s why we study what we study. We need to understand the mechanics of science better before we try to “reform” it based on our assumptions.
-
"If it is impossible to predict the future directions of science, how can priorities for research be meaningful? Consider the irony of the consequent conclusion. Does it make sense to be scientific about everything in our universe except the future course of science?" Bloom 1998
-
I just love that quote - it sums up so much that has frustrated me over the years listening to people informing others about the correct way to do science.
-
I hear you!!! And I like that quote.
-
TBF I think the question is a little cheeky even troll-y: "Does it make sense to be scientific about everything in our universe except the future course of science?" I'm not into scientism & humans, and scientists, are decidedly not scientific nor scientism-ic about everything.
-
Hmm I took it as mere hyperbole but that’s a fair point.
-
I always took it as a criticism of scientists asserting themselves as "doing their science" through evidence-based inference, but not interested in considering "how could we do our science better" in any context other than "my experience says this is the best way/the problem"
- 8 more 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.


