3 ms·
This is borderline nonsensical. If being social is toxic for truth, why do we care so much about peer review or experimental replication in science? Experiment
by __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
This is borderline nonsensical. If being social is toxic for truth, why do we care so much about peer review or experimental replication in science?
Experiments are arguments, designed to cause other scientists to agree about something. Do this enough that most scientists agree, and you've got the truth--or as reasonable an approximation thereof as your level of skepticism will permit.
If you prevent science from being social, you take away whatever might make it true.
- HKH2 5y agoDo you think it's reasonable to make a distinction between centralized and decentralized science?
- __MatrixMan__ 5y agoI've never heard those terms before, so I'd have to be talked into it. What about science is centralized? It seems like "centralized science" might have something to do with authority, which not an idea that I think gets along with science very well. I'm more into Feyerabend than Popper in that way.
- HKH2 5y agoIf getting into a major journal is a priority, then do you not become journal-centric (and subject to the whim of publishers)?
- __MatrixMan__ 5y agoAh, I see. Some degree of gatekeeping is probably good. What we're doing now is probably not. Striking the right balance seems important, but I don't know if drawing a firm line between the two is a good idea, I think you'd end up with otherwise rational people arguing themselves into more and more extreme positions if you managed to frame it as an us-vs-them thing (which is what drawing that line would do).