5 ms·

I'd first note that the three editors are philosophers and ethicists; most of the editorial board is philosophers, social scientists and lawyers. I expect they

I'd first note that the three editors are philosophers and ethicists; most of the editorial board is philosophers, social scientists and lawyers. I expect they've begun as they mean to go on. The problem with wanting "controversy" in "hard" sciences is that if there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research". If it's backed up by evidence, if it's a useful way of thinking that leads to lots of interesting new research, it's not going to be particularly controversial.

CrazyStat 5y ago
> The problem with wanting "controversy" in "hard" sciences is that if there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research". If it's backed up by evidence, if it's a useful way of thinking that leads to lots of interesting new research, it's not going to be particularly controversial. This is a credulous view of the hard sciences, which many scientists and almost all people who study the philosophy or sociology of science would disagree with. Certainly Kuhn would disagree fundamentally. Many ideas which are uncontroversial within their respective scientific fields today were, in fact, very controversial in decades or centuries past: relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, evolution, heliocentrism, ...
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  >Many ideas which are uncontroversial within their respective scientific fields today were, in fact, very controversial in decades or centuries past: relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, evolution, heliocentrism All of those examples provided a productive framework for future research, and after the research was done were supported by convincing evidence. They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit.
  - CrazyStat 5y ago
    > They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit. This is a hypothetical that is obviously impossible to disprove, but I fucking doubt it. Science, including in the hard sciences, is rife with personal animus, envy, and rivalries. Scientists are not dispassionate logic machines who simply maintain a healthy skepticism until the research bears fruit. Many of them will viciously attack your research, you, and the institutions that support you if they feel threatened by your ideas, and they are not above lying and cheating to get their way. As the pithy saying goes, science progresses one funeral at a time. Max Planck--a man who knew a thing or two about advocating controversial ideas--put it slightly more kindly [1]: > A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - byecomputer 5y ago
      Agreed. Many people in this thread seem to overestimate scientist's ability to operate without ego and underestimate the power of institutions to suppress work it finds objectionable. That sort of environment encourages self-censorship, and many (possibly good) ideas are stuffed away for fear of rocking the boat. It's easier to go with the flow than to stand alone and cast a shadow over your reputation and ability to work in the future.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      As a mid-career PhD student in a "hard" field I can attest that this description aligns with my experience. I'm a bit late to the party myself, but very much looking forward to the next generation of scientists who are exposed to the "categorical" approach to applied mathematics from a young age and have no qualms about rebuilding entire scientific fields within this new foundations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
derbOac 5y ago
I don't know. It's the first volume. I agree this is more likely to attract submissions from fields where there's more vicious controversy, but give it time. There's a good chance it will largely stay within the area of the first volumes' articles, perhaps with a bit more focus in bioethics or something of that sort. I could also forsee some sort of bombshell paper appearing that draws attention to the journal and raises its profile. A reasonable comparison might be whistleblower outlets. They tend not to churn out scandalous intelligence all the time, but rather, have long boring periods punctuated by significant submissions. I hope the journal establishes itself really. I think the main stake it's trying to make is protection of author anonymity, which I imagine could get very contentious at more mainstream outlets, even those in the physical sciences. I could even see a disgruntled editor at a typical journal leaking information about a submission in some belief that everything should be open, despite some consensus among the remaining editorial and publishing staff that anonymity should be preserved. Remember that there's a huge trend now in academic publishing toward radical transparency, in the sense of getting rid of blinded reviews. This is taking the opposite approach it seems, of increasing anonymity of everyone involved. If nothing else, it demonstrates the value of anonymity in academic publishing, and maybe provides a counterperspective to radical openness.
still_grokking 5y ago
> If it's backed up by evidence, if it's a useful way of thinking that leads to lots of interesting new research, it's not going to be particularly controversial. You mean like a lot of things in psychology or social "science"? Or what about string theory in physics? On the other hand side there are things like: http://www.electricuniverseuk.eu/the-science/ http://www.electricuniverseuk.eu/the-science/ Even there been Nobel prices for the underlying physics this stuff form the link above goes mostly in the same ballpark as flat-earth stuff. (I'm not a "believer" but I came across this stuff looking at pictures of loaded plasma and cosmological "dark mater" filaments that look bizarrely similar). Actually even in math they have "controversies", not everybody "believes" in the same stuff, for example like constructivism or its opposite. So I see some space for a journal which would publish science that nobody else likes to publish because it's not mainstream enough.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  > Or what about string theory in physics? You mean the research area that slowly gained interest, was intensely studied for decades, and now is slowly losing interest as it fails to acquire experimental evidence and the new avenues for research based on it dry up? Are you mad that people spent so much time on it for so long or that they're now moving on to other ideas? > Even there been Nobel prices for the underlying physics this stuff form the link above goes mostly in the same ballpark as flat-earth stuff. I am familiar with the works of Hannes Alfven (largely because I once tried to read a library in alphabetical order); I'll grudgingly admit that his ideas could be called "controversial" while also still being "interesting". I think it's an interesting case-study into whether there is(/was) a problem with controversial theories in astrophysics. 1. Was Alfven "hurt" by his voicing of "controversial" but "legitimate" scientific theories? Did his career suffer? 2. For the theories he put forth that were ultimately accepted by the broader scientific community, what did the trajectory of the acceptance look like? Was it just a matter of "the older generation dying off"? Was their new evidence presented that tipped the scales? Was it the applicability of the theories and methodology to other problems? 3. For the theories he put forth that were ultimately not accepted, can we now fairly discard them as "interesting but wrong?" Alfven is in the sweet spot of "long enough ago that we should be able to 'score' a lot of his work by now, but not so long ago to be muddied by time". It could be interesting to dig into in depth. > Actually even in math they have "controversies", not everybody "believes" in the same stuff, for example like constructivism or its opposite. I'm not going to claim there's never been a fist-fight between a constructionist and a non-constructionist, but the "disagreements" like constructivism are much more along the lines of "I find constructivist proofs and am curious how much of mathematics can be build constructively" versus "turns out the answer is 'not enough' and there are more interesting things to do anyway", not "YOUR METHODOLOGY IS HERETICAL AND YOU MUST BE DRESTROYED".
qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
>The problem with wanting "controversy" in "hard" sciences is that if there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research". Tell it to Copernicus. Check out the book Structure of Scientific Revolutions maybe.
cratermoon 5y ago
How about this for a controversy in the hard sciences: What is a planet and why?
- saalweachter 5y ago
  Naming is nomenclature is boring.
  - cratermoon 5y ago
    Apparently not so boring that we aren't still discussing the status of Pluto https://www.sciencenews.org/article/pluto-planet-vote-status-definition-demotion https://www.sciencenews.org/article/pluto-planet-vote-status...
native_samples 5y ago
there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research" That would be nice. Look at how much models based on absurd assumptions dominate epidemiology, a field you'd expect to have a biological foundation. The whole thing is controversial as hell outside the field because it very obviously doesn't work, but inside the field they don't care because abusing statistical modelling lets them publish lots of papers and get lots of citations. You could argue, OK, epidemiology isn't a hard science. Maybe it's actually a social science. But at some point it becomes tautological and the definition of "hard" science simply becomes any science in which you aren't personally familiar with the disputes.
- saalweachter 5y ago
  > You could argue, OK, epidemiology isn't a hard science. Maybe it's actually a social science. But at some point it becomes tautological and the definition of "hard" science simply becomes any science in which you aren't personally familiar with the disputes. The examples given by the OP were: "astrophysics, philosophy of mathematics, molecular biology, quantum physics etc".

CrazyStat 5y ago

> The problem with wanting "controversy" in "hard" sciences is that if there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research". If it's backed up by evidence, if it's a useful way of thinking that leads to lots of interesting new research, it's not going to be particularly controversial. This is a credulous view of the hard sciences, which many scientists and almost all people who study the philosophy or sociology of science would disagree with. Certainly Kuhn would disagree fundamentally. Many ideas which are uncontroversial within their respective scientific fields today were, in fact, very controversial in decades or centuries past: relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, evolution, heliocentrism, ...

boomboomsubban 5y ago
>Many ideas which are uncontroversial within their respective scientific fields today were, in fact, very controversial in decades or centuries past: relativity, quantum physics, plate tectonics, evolution, heliocentrism All of those examples provided a productive framework for future research, and after the research was done were supported by convincing evidence. They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit.
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  > They wouldn't be considered "controversial" in a modern field, people would just rightly be skeptical until the research bore fruit. This is a hypothetical that is obviously impossible to disprove, but I fucking doubt it. Science, including in the hard sciences, is rife with personal animus, envy, and rivalries. Scientists are not dispassionate logic machines who simply maintain a healthy skepticism until the research bears fruit. Many of them will viciously attack your research, you, and the institutions that support you if they feel threatened by your ideas, and they are not above lying and cheating to get their way. As the pithy saying goes, science progresses one funeral at a time. Max Planck--a man who knew a thing or two about advocating controversial ideas--put it slightly more kindly [1]: > A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - byecomputer 5y ago
    Agreed. Many people in this thread seem to overestimate scientist's ability to operate without ego and underestimate the power of institutions to suppress work it finds objectionable. That sort of environment encourages self-censorship, and many (possibly good) ideas are stuffed away for fear of rocking the boat. It's easier to go with the flow than to stand alone and cast a shadow over your reputation and ability to work in the future.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    As a mid-career PhD student in a "hard" field I can attest that this description aligns with my experience. I'm a bit late to the party myself, but very much looking forward to the next generation of scientists who are exposed to the "categorical" approach to applied mathematics from a young age and have no qualms about rebuilding entire scientific fields within this new foundations.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

derbOac 5y ago

I don't know. It's the first volume. I agree this is more likely to attract submissions from fields where there's more vicious controversy, but give it time. There's a good chance it will largely stay within the area of the first volumes' articles, perhaps with a bit more focus in bioethics or something of that sort. I could also forsee some sort of bombshell paper appearing that draws attention to the journal and raises its profile. A reasonable comparison might be whistleblower outlets. They tend not to churn out scandalous intelligence all the time, but rather, have long boring periods punctuated by significant submissions. I hope the journal establishes itself really. I think the main stake it's trying to make is protection of author anonymity, which I imagine could get very contentious at more mainstream outlets, even those in the physical sciences. I could even see a disgruntled editor at a typical journal leaking information about a submission in some belief that everything should be open, despite some consensus among the remaining editorial and publishing staff that anonymity should be preserved. Remember that there's a huge trend now in academic publishing toward radical transparency, in the sense of getting rid of blinded reviews. This is taking the opposite approach it seems, of increasing anonymity of everyone involved. If nothing else, it demonstrates the value of anonymity in academic publishing, and maybe provides a counterperspective to radical openness.

still_grokking 5y ago

> If it's backed up by evidence, if it's a useful way of thinking that leads to lots of interesting new research, it's not going to be particularly controversial. You mean like a lot of things in psychology or social "science"? Or what about string theory in physics? On the other hand side there are things like: http://www.electricuniverseuk.eu/the-science/ http://www.electricuniverseuk.eu/the-science/ Even there been Nobel prices for the underlying physics this stuff form the link above goes mostly in the same ballpark as flat-earth stuff. (I'm not a "believer" but I came across this stuff looking at pictures of loaded plasma and cosmological "dark mater" filaments that look bizarrely similar). Actually even in math they have "controversies", not everybody "believes" in the same stuff, for example like constructivism or its opposite. So I see some space for a journal which would publish science that nobody else likes to publish because it's not mainstream enough.

saalweachter 5y ago
> Or what about string theory in physics? You mean the research area that slowly gained interest, was intensely studied for decades, and now is slowly losing interest as it fails to acquire experimental evidence and the new avenues for research based on it dry up? Are you mad that people spent so much time on it for so long or that they're now moving on to other ideas? > Even there been Nobel prices for the underlying physics this stuff form the link above goes mostly in the same ballpark as flat-earth stuff. I am familiar with the works of Hannes Alfven (largely because I once tried to read a library in alphabetical order); I'll grudgingly admit that his ideas could be called "controversial" while also still being "interesting". I think it's an interesting case-study into whether there is(/was) a problem with controversial theories in astrophysics. 1. Was Alfven "hurt" by his voicing of "controversial" but "legitimate" scientific theories? Did his career suffer? 2. For the theories he put forth that were ultimately accepted by the broader scientific community, what did the trajectory of the acceptance look like? Was it just a matter of "the older generation dying off"? Was their new evidence presented that tipped the scales? Was it the applicability of the theories and methodology to other problems? 3. For the theories he put forth that were ultimately not accepted, can we now fairly discard them as "interesting but wrong?" Alfven is in the sweet spot of "long enough ago that we should be able to 'score' a lot of his work by now, but not so long ago to be muddied by time". It could be interesting to dig into in depth. > Actually even in math they have "controversies", not everybody "believes" in the same stuff, for example like constructivism or its opposite. I'm not going to claim there's never been a fist-fight between a constructionist and a non-constructionist, but the "disagreements" like constructivism are much more along the lines of "I find constructivist proofs and am curious how much of mathematics can be build constructively" versus "turns out the answer is 'not enough' and there are more interesting things to do anyway", not "YOUR METHODOLOGY IS HERETICAL AND YOU MUST BE DRESTROYED".

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago

cratermoon 5y ago

How about this for a controversy in the hard sciences: What is a planet and why?

saalweachter 5y ago
Naming is nomenclature is boring.
- cratermoon 5y ago
  Apparently not so boring that we aren't still discussing the status of Pluto https://www.sciencenews.org/article/pluto-planet-vote-status-definition-demotion https://www.sciencenews.org/article/pluto-planet-vote-status...

native_samples 5y ago

there's a "controversial" theory of physics or biology, that's really just another way of saying "there's not convincing evidence in favor of it, and it doesn't provide a productive framework for future research" That would be nice. Look at how much models based on absurd assumptions dominate epidemiology, a field you'd expect to have a biological foundation. The whole thing is controversial as hell outside the field because it very obviously doesn't work, but inside the field they don't care because abusing statistical modelling lets them publish lots of papers and get lots of citations. You could argue, OK, epidemiology isn't a hard science. Maybe it's actually a social science. But at some point it becomes tautological and the definition of "hard" science simply becomes any science in which you aren't personally familiar with the disputes.

saalweachter 5y ago
> You could argue, OK, epidemiology isn't a hard science. Maybe it's actually a social science. But at some point it becomes tautological and the definition of "hard" science simply becomes any science in which you aren't personally familiar with the disputes. The examples given by the OP were: "astrophysics, philosophy of mathematics, molecular biology, quantum physics etc".