3 ms·

If the incentive structure were even tilted a bit to make reporting negative or ambiguous results less career-damaging, we would see much less of this I don't

If the incentive structure were even tilted a bit to make reporting negative or ambiguous results less career-damaging, we would see much less of this I don't see how we do this. Ultimately, the buck stops with the public. Governments fund the sciences because the public demands it. If scientists spend more time reporting negative or ambiguous results then the public begin to question what they're paying for. People want breakthroughs and scientific revolutions, not "business as usual." And this bias is not limited to the public, scientists themselves want to see new science.

mistermann 3y ago
> Governments fund the sciences because the public demands it. Is this a scientific fact? Secondly, is it an epistemically flawless fact (which is similar, but also different)? In what way exactly does "the public" "demand" that which science does?
- chongli 3y ago
  Is this a scientific fact? Secondly, is it an epistemically flawless fact (which is similar, but also different)? Why don’t you check on Google Scholar and report back to me? In what way exactly does "the public" "demand" that which science does? In the economic way that we say most things are demanded. I’m not saying that people are going to be out in the streets protesting if scientists start publishing more negative results. I’m saying that the general public attitude towards science (the one measured in polls) is affected by the public’s perception that scientists are producing important and meaningful results.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > Why don’t you check on Google Scholar and report back to me? Standard conventions for burden of proof I suppose. Surely you don't actually have no evidence to back up your claim, do you? > In the economic way that we say most things are demanded. Are you discerning support for science from economic data of some sort? >I’m saying that the general public attitude towards science (the one measured in polls) is affected by the public’s perception that scientists are producing important and meaningful results. And might it be possible that the public's perception of science could be affected by all of the free marketing it's gotten in the last five or so years?
godelski 3y ago
I don't think this is entirely a good model. People do want advancements and "breakthroughs" but the truth is that they don't understand any of those things. So if good science is happening, even in a small proportion, then your argument just suggests that reporting is more important. With respect to the public, I generally agree. But with this in mind, it would be probably more effective to just increase the total funding and randomly hand it out. You'd get bad apples like we do now and similar stories of ineffective spending -- where the public only understands "big number" -- but you'd also have more "successes" which are however you want to define them. That's because the truth of it is, for science progress is "business as usual." As for "breakthroughs" and "revolutions" well, those are exceedingly rare, and I'm willing to bet that several of the ones you are thinking of (not all) are less leaps and bounds than you perceive and more shoulders on "giants," where the "giants" are just several people in a trench coat. So I don't get how this supports the current framework.

mistermann 3y ago

> Governments fund the sciences because the public demands it. Is this a scientific fact? Secondly, is it an epistemically flawless fact (which is similar, but also different)? In what way exactly does "the public" "demand" that which science does?

chongli 3y ago
Is this a scientific fact? Secondly, is it an epistemically flawless fact (which is similar, but also different)? Why don’t you check on Google Scholar and report back to me? In what way exactly does "the public" "demand" that which science does? In the economic way that we say most things are demanded. I’m not saying that people are going to be out in the streets protesting if scientists start publishing more negative results. I’m saying that the general public attitude towards science (the one measured in polls) is affected by the public’s perception that scientists are producing important and meaningful results.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > Why don’t you check on Google Scholar and report back to me? Standard conventions for burden of proof I suppose. Surely you don't actually have no evidence to back up your claim, do you? > In the economic way that we say most things are demanded. Are you discerning support for science from economic data of some sort? >I’m saying that the general public attitude towards science (the one measured in polls) is affected by the public’s perception that scientists are producing important and meaningful results. And might it be possible that the public's perception of science could be affected by all of the free marketing it's gotten in the last five or so years?

godelski 3y ago

I don't think this is entirely a good model. People do want advancements and "breakthroughs" but the truth is that they don't understand any of those things. So if good science is happening, even in a small proportion, then your argument just suggests that reporting is more important. With respect to the public, I generally agree. But with this in mind, it would be probably more effective to just increase the total funding and randomly hand it out. You'd get bad apples like we do now and similar stories of ineffective spending -- where the public only understands "big number" -- but you'd also have more "successes" which are however you want to define them. That's because the truth of it is, for science progress is "business as usual." As for "breakthroughs" and "revolutions" well, those are exceedingly rare, and I'm willing to bet that several of the ones you are thinking of (not all) are less leaps and bounds than you perceive and more shoulders on "giants," where the "giants" are just several people in a trench coat. So I don't get how this supports the current framework.