That's the reason why theory should be backed by hard evidence or a product that can be experienced. Without this, a theory of any sort whether it turns out to be right or if it is pure bullshit should not be given undue credit.
The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
51–60 of 163 posts
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#52The job market right now in the US forces grad students to attempt innovative research with remarkable conclusions. As a consequence, everyone's trying to prove more outlandish things while few are bothering with replications. If the field were sane, you would train all the apprentices on replication studies. Once they demonstrated dispassionate expertise with the tools, only then would they be allowed to try to use…
A lot of the time those same students are doing the bulk of the legwork for those findings then attributed to a professor, who is under greater pressure to advance (not confirm) science, who may or may not have even participated heavily in the grunt work of that research. The professor then punishes the work under his/her name, with no credit to the work of the students.
> A lot of the time those same students are doing the bulk of the legwork for those findings then attributed to a professor, who is under greater pressure to advance (not confirm) science, who may or may not have even participated heavily in the grunt work of that research. The professor then punishes the work under his/her name, with no credit to the work of the students.
It's important to note that though this seems to happen in all fields, it is far less common in some. I rarely hear of such things in astronomy; it does happen, but more often I hear about faculty explicitly working to ensure they can protect projects for their students so their students can get the credit deserved for doing the project. I hear of professors appropriating student research in biology and chemistry more frequently, however.
The occurrences of professors taking and publishing student research is certainly a problem, is unethical, and should be stopped. But the way in which it is usually discussed ("in science") implies that it's a systemic issue across all science, which (from my experience) isn't true. This topic of credit and attribution for research deserves more nuanced discussion and fewer blanket statements.
Edit: Spelling, wording clarification.
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#53[deleted]
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#54I read this as a thinly-veiled attack on prominent climate-change activists. I thought the author ended a bit abruptly; was expecting a comparison of the tactics used by the fictitious "Voldemort" to the real-life actions of Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, etc.
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#55'
Instead, “It’s about a methodology for investigation, which includes, at its core, a relentless drive towards questioning that which came before.” You can both “love science,” he concludes, “and question it.”
'
I've noticed that questioning some scientific finding often makes people think I am either anti-science, anti-intellectual, conservative, religious, or any combination thereof (I am none of these). To state quite the opposite, I think not questioning science makes you religious - you are putting faith in the findings, rather than disputing them or scrutinizing them with the scientific method (not that I think there is anything wrong with faith or religion, within their own realm).
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#56Author mentions difficulty of reproducing research as one of the issues in passing. There was a recent Nature special edition on the subject:
http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-1.17552
I believe this is the primary issue and the cause is from one of two causes:
1) secret sauce in research -- details are lacking because there is a push to commercialize things that come out of academia
2) insufficient experimental design -- small sample size, poor controls, etc.
I would like to see an open publication that as a part of publication the result must be reproduced in a separate independent lab or two. This would almost double the required funding (maybe less because you eliminate false starts). Maybe just a few institutions could handle many reproductions.
There is a bit of a self-healing aspect in that the non-reproducible and non-interesting/advancing studies just get dropped on the floor. However, it would lend a lot of credibility to a journal that required an independent research confirmation.
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#57bm
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm a bit tired of seeing critics of various hypotheses being dismissed out of hand simply "Because Science". While this is certainly an issue, more often than not I see "critics" claiming broad statements without even trying to verify/falsify their claims scientifically. And if I have to choose between two sides, where one tries hard to fulfill scientific requirements while the other doesn't care, I'm certainly on…
I'd like to point out that there are three possible stances on a phenomena. True, false and we don't know. People are bad at maintaining the "I don't know" stance. But it's sometimes the only objective.
I would like to point out that you are missing one of the most important stances: one of probability. Sometimes you dont know, but factors indicate a percentage probability, that should be updated as the data changes.
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#59so true! and when you you reward the bullshit artists with money and grants.. it multiplies the bullshit a thousand fold
Re: The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit
#60In other professional disciplines particularly ones that require some sort of certification there are ethics tests and ethics committees. For example if your trying to get a CFA half of the test is ethics. Likewise for becoming and being a lawyer.
Given the importance of academia and its impact on policy in general perhaps something similar should exist?
I'm not sure if ethical tests and committees curb bad behavior but it could be a start or at least improve awareness. Maybe there is even something like the above already in place for academia that I'm unaware of?