I didn't want to break the thread but in tandem with phil of science I'd say looking at some history of science would probably help too. Seeing what they did before formalised peer review, for example, can help to see what systems we can rule in or out.https://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-troubled-from-the-start-1.19763 …
-
-
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"
-
Can I look at the context, please?
-
I don't think we (none of the mentioned people herein) disagree. However, IMHO the "way we do science" pertains more to the scientific method. And I know, it can be more broad, but I do often dissociate between "the method" (indeed methods, plural) and peer review, etc.
-
That being said, they (the methods, the reviewing paradigms) are all truly "the way we do science". And the lines are getting even more blurred vis-a-vis by above dissociation since RRR and pre-reg generally affect both publication methods and research methods.
-
*by = my Also just wanna say, great conversation, you all!

-
Right back at you! You always provide a different perspective and make me think

- 2 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.

