7/
"a more careful appreciation of uncertainty and ignorance [...] against the hubris of quantification often seen in science for policy" [4]

#References

[3] van der Sluijs, J.P., 2012. Uncertainty and dissent in climate risk assessment: a post-normal perspective. Nature and Culture 7, 174–195. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2012.070204

[4] Saltelli, A., Funtowicz, S., 2017. What is science’s crisis really about? Futures 91, 5–11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010

#DOI #modelling #PostNormalScience #ScienceSelfCorrection

7/

#References

[3] van der Sluijs, J.P., 2012. Uncertainty and dissent in climate risk assessment: a post-normal perspective. Nature and Culture 7, 174–195. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2012.070204

[4] Saltelli, A., Funtowicz, S., 2017. What is science’s crisis really about? Futures 91, 5–11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.010

#DOI #science #research #CognitiveBiases #PostNormalScience #ScienceSelfCorrection #ComputationalModelling

6/
On similar topics:

https://hostux.social/@dderigo/110131512572533527

#References

[1] Letrud, K., Hernes, S., 2019. Affirmative citation bias in scientific myth debunking: a three-in-one case study. PLOS ONE 14, e0222213+. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222213

[2] Smaldino, P.E., McElreath, R., 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science 3, 160384+. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

#DOI #entropy #ScienceSelfCorrection #CognitiveBiases #science #research #PublishOrPerish

6/
On similar topics:

https://hostux.social/@dderigo/110131512572533527

#References

[1] Letrud, K., Hernes, S., 2019. Affirmative citation bias in scientific myth debunking: A three-in-one case study. PLOS ONE 14, e0222213+. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222213

[2] Smaldino, P.E., McElreath, R., 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science 3, 160384+. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160384

#DOI #entropy #ScienceSelfCorrection #CognitiveBiases #science #research #PublishOrPerish

12/
#Science is not perfect, but it proved for centuries it can self-correct. This is perhaps one of its most impressive (and powerful) processes. However, it seems we can't count "automatically" on its distinctive self-correction. This means awareness and "distributed" monitoring is key, for #ScienceSelfCorrection to work

#References

[5] Bornmann, L., et al., 2023. Anchoring effects in the assessment of papers: An empirical survey of citing authors. PLOS ONE 18 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283893

#DOI

8/
#Science is not perfect but its distinctive self-correction ability is key, and it's not automatic. It's a process to foster, not an intrinsic property (as we all are subject to #CognitiveBias, believing that we'll fix this in science, once and for all, is quite an obvious #catch22 paradox - hint: "believing").

Research once honestly believed good may be revisioned later. However, sometimes a thesis/paradigm/school fights to survive beyond good faith, "against" #ScienceSelfCorrection