3 ms·

> This is also naive. In that case you won't be able to publish your results in prestigious journals and your career will die out. Charlatan fortunetellers are

> This is also naive. In that case you won't be able to publish your results in prestigious journals and your career will die out. Charlatan fortunetellers aren't owed careers as scientists -- if they can't produce reliable, predictive models because they utterly fail to control experiments,then they should have their careers destroyed. We've seen enough damage from corporate leaders and politicians relying on guides to reading chicken entrails masquerading as science. It's time to stop the fraud.

majewsky 9y ago
Consider the consequences of what you're demanding: You'd basically outlaw any research on complex systems. Everything in biology, sociology, archeology, climate science, etc. Is that a reasonable response to the problem at hand?
- nonbel 9y ago
  Why would it be outlawed?
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  No, I would bifurcate research into two classes -- Let's call it 'science' and 'hunches'. (I'm sure marketing people would think of a better name.) There's nothing stopping you from publishing hunches; there's nothing stopping the same journals from publishing science and hunches. It would just be the case that we'd treat publishing a hunch as science as fraud, because you're outright lying about how sure you are. It is the case that several fields would get (almost entirely) moved from science to hunches, but that would be good! The label will match what's inside. If we have this split in the product lines, if we have these two tiers (models where we're really sure and complex systems where we only have a working hunch), then we should just own it and put that on the tin. All I'm asking is people stop labeling composite wood as lumber -- and understandably, a lot of people selling composites act like that would make the sky fall. Hardly, there's a real demand for both products and both serve a real need. Let's just be honest in our marketing and stop conflating the two.
nonbel 9y ago
Sure, just be aware of what you are saying. Over 99% of what gets published is like this. Generations have wasted their careers producing misinformation. It all needs to be redone since these practices began (in some areas of research this is at t=0). Etc.

majewsky 9y ago

Consider the consequences of what you're demanding: You'd basically outlaw any research on complex systems. Everything in biology, sociology, archeology, climate science, etc. Is that a reasonable response to the problem at hand?

nonbel 9y ago
Why would it be outlawed?
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
No, I would bifurcate research into two classes -- Let's call it 'science' and 'hunches'. (I'm sure marketing people would think of a better name.) There's nothing stopping you from publishing hunches; there's nothing stopping the same journals from publishing science and hunches. It would just be the case that we'd treat publishing a hunch as science as fraud, because you're outright lying about how sure you are. It is the case that several fields would get (almost entirely) moved from science to hunches, but that would be good! The label will match what's inside. If we have this split in the product lines, if we have these two tiers (models where we're really sure and complex systems where we only have a working hunch), then we should just own it and put that on the tin. All I'm asking is people stop labeling composite wood as lumber -- and understandably, a lot of people selling composites act like that would make the sky fall. Hardly, there's a real demand for both products and both serve a real need. Let's just be honest in our marketing and stop conflating the two.

nonbel 9y ago

Sure, just be aware of what you are saying. Over 99% of what gets published is like this. Generations have wasted their careers producing misinformation. It all needs to be redone since these practices began (in some areas of research this is at t=0). Etc.