4 ms·
When you think about it, it's insane that metametascience isn't studied more. We're going to question every little detail about the scientific process, but we'r
by fnord123 5y ago
When you think about it, it's insane that metametascience isn't studied more. We're going to question every little detail about the scientific process, but we're just going to take on faith that peer-review and publication in journals is an effective method for weeding out "bad" metascience?
- caenn 5y agoIndeed, and if you think metascience is bad, imagine meta-metascience.
- analog31 5y agoWhere's tail call optimization when you need it?
- jonsen 5y agoWould be nice if tail call optimization solved the halting problem.
- IIAOPSW 5y agoYou've caught an Orobus by the tail!
- svieira 5y agoMeta-metascience has been studied _extensively_ by previous generations, where what this generation calls "science" was called "natural philosophy" and interesting discourse and study was had on such things as: * The study of knowledge (epistemology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology * The study of existence and what exists (ontology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology * The study of the purpose of things (teleology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology It turns out that these are hard areas of study and it requires a lot of properly focused leisure time to understand properly. Most people don't consider these things, wing it, and wind up working with a half-baked meta-meta science of their own creation ... oh, I see what you mean :-D