4 ms·

> Perhaps we should be teaching scientists that staking their identities on particular results is to be resisted as much as possible. But does this make sense?

> Perhaps we should be teaching scientists that staking their identities on particular results is to be resisted as much as possible. But does this make sense? Can a scientist survive without doing this? Can a scientist get very far without results right now? Is this a problem of the scientist, or perhaps the social/economic expectation?

dwaltrip 9y ago
I think this is an institution level failure to adapt to what science is like in the modern age. New results are significantly more difficult and expensive to achieve in modern science, as the easier stuff has already been conquered in centuries and decades past. The harder problems that science now works on means that distinguishing between actual results and incorrect conclusions is also much more difficult. The growth of science as a percentage of the population and economy has also finally slowed down a few decades ago, after centuries of rocket-like growth. It is now a maturing enterprise, instead of a high-growth startup. This means increased competition for resources and mindshare from those wanting to do science. Not surprisingly, all proxy measures and heuristics for evaluating scientific success are thus more likely to be abused. I don't think we have fully adapted to these fundamental changes. Disclaimer: I'm not a historian or researcher, but I've heard aspects of the above from a variety of sources, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
michaelt 9y ago
Personally if I was going to stake my professional reputation on a set of results, I'd expand from an exploratory study with a 20% chance of being wrong to a more rigorous study with, say, a 0.1% chance of being wrong. Of course, that's much easier for people in STEM than it is for social scientists.
- projektir 9y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if, for the average scientist, it's that 20% risk... or nothing.

dwaltrip 9y ago

I think this is an institution level failure to adapt to what science is like in the modern age. New results are significantly more difficult and expensive to achieve in modern science, as the easier stuff has already been conquered in centuries and decades past. The harder problems that science now works on means that distinguishing between actual results and incorrect conclusions is also much more difficult. The growth of science as a percentage of the population and economy has also finally slowed down a few decades ago, after centuries of rocket-like growth. It is now a maturing enterprise, instead of a high-growth startup. This means increased competition for resources and mindshare from those wanting to do science. Not surprisingly, all proxy measures and heuristics for evaluating scientific success are thus more likely to be abused. I don't think we have fully adapted to these fundamental changes. Disclaimer: I'm not a historian or researcher, but I've heard aspects of the above from a variety of sources, and it makes a lot of sense to me.

michaelt 9y ago

Personally if I was going to stake my professional reputation on a set of results, I'd expand from an exploratory study with a 20% chance of being wrong to a more rigorous study with, say, a 0.1% chance of being wrong. Of course, that's much easier for people in STEM than it is for social scientists.

projektir 9y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if, for the average scientist, it's that 20% risk... or nothing.