3 ms·
The problem with this approach is that once you toss science there is not much left to inform policy decisions (religion? profit? personal views?). One less dr
by ptero 9y ago
The problem with this approach is that once you toss science there is not much left to inform policy decisions (religion? profit? personal views?).
One less drastic solution may be to require a full disclosure of the process for all experimental results (to allow reproduction) and place much higher value in funding decisions on reproducibility.
One particularly egregious approach reproducibility requirement can address is doing enough "independent" studies until you like the result, then report that one study only (e.g., toss a coin 10 times; repeat as a new study until you find 10 tails; report a new discovery). My 2c.
- lev99 9y ago> doing enough "independent" studies until you like the result, then report that one study only This happens not only in which studies get submitted to the public, but also which submitted studies get chosen for publication. Journals are proving to be a poor way to handle the amount of science humanity is doing.
- unknown_apostle 9y agoHeuristics: use what has worked in the past and keeps working well enough today? You don't need to fully understand why it works. Aka "conservatism" in the broadest sense.
- DanAndersen 9y agoExactly. Traditionalism isn't perfect, but it acts as a sort of long-term experimentation. That which has worked over long periods of time can be a good default to stick with. Environments do change, but the nature of humanity and society also has constants over time that are important to consider.
- AstralStorm 9y agoThe problem is that there is no turning back. Especially considering nutrition, chemistry, material science. Environment has changed enough - especially number of people - that attempting to use traditional methods en masse could be very risky. (Much less in nutrition or medicine where we have made major gains on the average.)