4 ms·
Real science is random, see No Method. When you make it a career that has requirements and expectations you set this sort of process to take place. Still even t
by x5n1 11y ago
Real science is random, see No Method. When you make it a career that has requirements and expectations you set this sort of process to take place. Still even through this process, if enough people are doing it, there is bound to be some breakthrough science. But most of the people are wasting their time cooking data to make their careers go further, rather than make progress in science.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- jessaustin 11y agoYou're right that this phenomenon undermines confidence in scientific results. It also undermines truth in those results. Garbage in, garbage out.
- aledalgrande 11y agoI have not worked directly in research, but that has been my experience when trying to reproduce results from papers: it hardly works even after following each step the researcher did (confirmed via email) and a lot of conditions that are not true in the real world have to be met.
- tdaltonc 11y agoI assume you're referring to "Against Method" by Feyerabend? His argument is absolutely not that science is "random". It's that the methods of science cannot be predicted, prescribed, or universal, even over very short time scales and between similar fields. Even if Feyerabend is right [0], it's still perfectly reasonable to expect studies to be repeatable. [0] I'm sure he is but I think that the degree and practical significance of his observation is questionable.