31–40 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be easier for them to not obfuscate and use the checker themselves prior to publishing.
True, assuming no malfeasance on the part of the authors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Objectivity is listed as a problem with science curriculum. Welcome to the future. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&co...
This appears to be about STEM education, not STEM fields directly.
Science is fundamentally reputation-driven. One of, if not the primary incentive that encourages scientists to do science work is the chance of raising their prestige. Citations are one very quantifiable yardstick for this.
If positive social sanctions are a driving force for science, then it's entirely reasonable that negative sanctions should come into play too. If you can well-cited paper and attract fame, then a poor paper should likewise attract shame.
Otherwise you have a positive feedback loop where once a scientist has attracted enough prestige, they are untouchable. We need negative feedback to balance that out.
> Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.”
> The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological terrorism.”
If these are attitudes typical of psychology, then I cannot say I consider psychology to be a proper social science. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how knowledge is created through the scientific process if the verification step is considered to be offensive or taboo. That anyone in the field of psychology would even be comfortable publically espousing a non-scientific worldview like that means that psychologists are not being properly educated in the scientific method and should not be in the business of producing research since they do not have a mature understanding of what "scientific" implies.
> and whether online critiques of past work constitute “bullying” or shaming. The PubPeer comments are just a tiny part of that debate. But it can hit a nerve. > Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.” > The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological t…
> The gist of her article was that she feared too much of the criticism of past work had been ceded to social media, and that the criticism there is taking on an uncivil tone.
So it seems to me, her complaint was not that research shouldn't be criticized. It was more-so that research should be criticized well, and that social media is a poor place for it, because it favors personal attacks over thoughtful criticism. (I'm not saying I agree with her. Just trying to understand her argument in the best light.)
I find it very disconcerting that people are trying to fend off criticism of previously published studies by calling it "bullying" or sometimes worse. What do feelings have to do with science?
Objectivity is listed as a problem with science curriculum. Welcome to the future. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&co...
"As these examples show, the STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the student, which promotes a view of knowledge as unchanging. This is further reinforced by the use of adverbs to imply certainty such as “actually” and “in fact” which are used in syllabi to identify information as factual and beyond dispute (Biber, 2006a; 2006b). For example, “draw accurate conclusions from scientific data presented in different formats” (Lower level math). Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make the correct decision."
I mean, it just uses a basic regular expression, I can see it easily performing bad checks. I assume the authors take this into account.
> and whether online critiques of past work constitute “bullying” or shaming. The PubPeer comments are just a tiny part of that debate. But it can hit a nerve. > Susan Fiske, a former president of the Association for Psychological Science, alluded to Statcheck in an interview with Business Insider, calling it a “gotcha algorithm.” > The draft of the article said these online critics were engaging in “methodological t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Objectivity is listed as a problem with science curriculum. Welcome to the future. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2467&co...
While I am not a big fan of contemporary feminism, I am pretty sure taking issue with masculinity or "gendered" text is not the same thing as taking issue with objectivity. Edit: Found this quote in your source "Poststructuralism “rejects objectivity and the notions of an absolute truth and single reality,”" Hmm, this seems an awful lot like a religion.
Well, since English is a gendered language, taking issue with 'gendered' text is taking issue with the objective reality that … English is a gendered language.