Good science does not automatically emerge from the ritual performance of certain actions as long as we keep our beliefs at bay when following the correct procedures. Scientists' minds cannot be excluded from scientific process and it's absurd to imagine that this is what we should strive for. > - ThreadSky

devezer.bsky.social • 157 days ago

Good science does not automatically emerge from the ritual performance of certain actions as long as we keep our beliefs at bay when following the correct procedures. Scientists' minds cannot be excluded from scientific process and it's absurd to imagine that this is what we should strive for. >

Comments

devezer.bsky.social•157 days ago

There are no correct rituals that promise an easy and failsafe social science. As Munger says:

`But social science is hard. Nature does not ow[e] us any explanations. There’s no guarantee that any specific theory or method will yield results. The essential truth of science is that anything goes.'

devezer.bsky.social•157 days ago

Also relevant to: #philsci #sts #stats

thediscoveryofzero.com•157 days ago

I think about this a lot in terms of inquiry in general and the relativism of being open to allowing truth to take you where it will. Even as you plant markers in the ground, paying attention to where they came from and their quality.

conjugateprior.org•155 days ago

In this respect I'm quite fond of Strevens' Iron Rule of Explanation. I think it picks out a lot of what's useful in the open science stuff. In particular that doing things in public is a scientific good in itself.

stephenjwild.bsky.social•157 days ago

My spicy take for the night is that there is no replication crisis, most things will fail to replicate, and it's not a problem

devezer.bsky.social•157 days ago

*draws a circle around herself* Not spicy enough in this circle!

stephenjwild.bsky.social•157 days ago

Definitely spicy in certain quarters

devezer.bsky.social•157 days ago

As I have heard*!

____
*repeatedly, over and over, in peer review and social media

beenwrekt.bsky.social•157 days ago

My slightly hotter take is that replication crises are good because we learn from what fails to replicate.

mzloteanu.bsky.social•157 days ago

I've gone from "this is the way" to being quite skeptical of science reform, but on my journey I still learned a lot about doing (better) research. Open science seems to be more "maybe it was the friends we made along the way" kind of thing.

devezer.bsky.social•157 days ago

You're not alone, I imagine. Ultimately it's all about our personal journeys and the process of learning.

recombobulating.bsky.social•156 days ago

Oh I like this a lot especially as a counterpoint to the dismissal of anything involving human behaviour as 'soft science'.

potsandpansrobot.bsky.social•156 days ago

Pretty much exactly what we were saying earlier!

recombobulating.bsky.social•156 days ago

The soft science thing was something I actually saw/heard at an online metasci conference (some of them are open to non academics like me). The pattern of conflict/contrast is everywhere.

thelasttheorist.bsky.social•157 days ago

This is why I don't wear my Science Priest outfit very often.

devezer.bsky.social•157 days ago

it's not an outfit that fits anyone well anyway. shows too much skin while pretending to be all demure (give me relevance points here).

thelasttheorist.bsky.social•157 days ago

So much for using my "academic ankles" OnlyFans to finance my research.

justinsulik.bsky.social•155 days ago

Absolutely! I think this is why psychology of science has much to contribute right now: whatever recommendation one comes up with for improving science (even if sensible/well evidenced-a big IF), it would need to get done by actual scientists with diverse motivations, material circumstances & values

adw.bsky.social•156 days ago

Yeah, I liked that he made this point clear - that much reform is about procedure, not (for example) theory. It’s a good point! Procedures help, but aren’t the thing itself

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply