Controversy: A Crucial Ingredient for Scientific Progress

Can We Hope for Progress in Understanding Progress?

Вопросы философии ◽

10.21146/0042-8744-2021-11-63-69 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 63-69

Author(s):

Olga E. Stoliarova ◽

Keyword(s):

Scientific Progress ◽

Harmonious Society ◽

Natural World ◽

Point Of View ◽

Social Progress ◽

Human Reason ◽

Organic Systems ◽

The World ◽

Fundamental Unity ◽

World Development

The article discusses the question raised by A.L. Nikiforov about the meaning and significance of scientific progress. It is shown that scientific progress, in accordance with the original meaning embedded in this concept, should be considered in the context of the universal development of the human reason, which covers not only the cognitive assimilation of the natural world, but also the construction of a harmonious society, and the improvement of man as such. Based on this, it is problematic to talk about autonomous scientific progress that does not affect the spiritual sphere. It is shown that changes in the understanding of progress refer not only to scientific or social progress, but to the whole complex of beliefs associated with the idea of the world development. The author traces the historical transformation of the three key concepts underlying the discourse of progress, which the researcher of the metaphysics of progress Alain de Benoist identifies as the most stable. First, the idea of linear progress, based on the mechanistic ontology and reductionism, is replaced by the concept of social evolution, based on the interaction of organic systems and subsystems. Secondly, the idea of the fundamental unity of humanity and a single science gives way to an irreducible multiplicity of cultures and metaphysics. Third, the idea of a controlled transformation of the world is replaced by the concept of uncertainty. The author traces the transformation of the idea of progress into the idea of the complication of the world. A characteristic feature of the discourse of complication is that it speaks of a distributed agent of the world process, thereby relieving man of exclusive responsibility for the course of history. The author defends the point of view that changes in the understanding of progress are an expression of increasing conceptual and ontological complexity.

Download Full-text

Mapping the discursive dimensions of the reproducibility crisis: A mixed methods analysis

10.31222/osf.io/sbv3q ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nicole Christine Nelson ◽

Kelsey Ichikawa ◽

Julie Chung ◽

Momin Malik

Keyword(s):

Mixed Methods ◽

Scientific Progress ◽

Natural World ◽

Academic Publishing ◽

Underlying Structure ◽

Prior Work ◽

Incentive Structure ◽

Mixed Methods Approach ◽

The Core ◽

Final Cluster

Addressing issues with the reproducibility of results is critical for scientific progress, but conflicting ideas about the sources of and solutions to irreproducibility are a barrier to change. Prior work has attempted to address this problem by creating analytical definitions of reproducibility. We take a novel empirical, mixed methods approach to understanding variation in reproducibility conversations, which yields a map of the discursive dimensions of these conversations. This analysis demonstrates that concerns about the incentive structure of science, the transparency of methods and data, and the need to reform academic publishing form the core of reproducibility discussions. We also identify three clusters of discussion that are distinct from the main group: one focused on reagents, another on statistical methods, and a final cluster focused the heterogeneity of the natural world. Although there are discursive differences between scientific and popular articles, there are no strong differences in how scientists and journalists write about the reproducibility crisis. Our findings show that conversations about reproducibility have a clear underlying structure, despite the broad scope and scale of the crisis. Our map demonstrates the value of using qualitative methods to identify the bounds and features of reproducibility discourse, and identifies distinct vocabularies and constituencies that reformers should engage with to promote change.

Download Full-text

Design Hypotheses Behave Like Skeptical Hypotheses

International Journal for the Study of Skepticism ◽

10.1163/22105700-20171192 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 69-90 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

René van Woudenberg ◽

Jeroen de Ridder

Keyword(s):

Scientific Progress ◽

Natural World ◽

Skeptical Theism ◽

Epistemic Position ◽

Radical Skepticism ◽

Knowledge Claims ◽

Rule Out ◽

Do So

It is often claimed that, as a result of scientific progress, we now know that the natural world displays no design. Although we have no interest in defending design hypotheses, we will argue that establishing claims to the effect that we know the denials of design hypotheses is more difficult than it seems. We do so by issuing two skeptical challenges to design-deniers. The first challenge draws inspiration from radical skepticism and shows how design claims are at least as compelling as radical skeptical scenarios in undermining knowledge claims, and in fact probably more so. The second challenge takes its cue from skeptical theism and shows how we are typically not in an epistemic position to rule out design.

Download Full-text

Nature of Our Literature

Communications in Kinesiology ◽

10.51224/cik.v1i3.43 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 1 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Rosie Twomey ◽

Vanessa Yingling ◽

Joe Warne ◽

Christoph Schneider ◽

Christopher McCrum ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Positive Result ◽

Scientific Literature ◽

Scientific Progress ◽

Natural World ◽

Trial Registration ◽

High Rate ◽

Significance Testing ◽

Original Research ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Poor Reporting

Scientists rely upon an accurate scientific literature in order to build and test new theories about the natural world. In the past decade, observational studies of the scientific literature have indicated that numerous questionable research practices and poor reporting practices may be hindering scientific progress. In particular, 3 recent studies have indicated an implausibly high rate of studies with positive (i.e., hypothesis confirming) results. In sports medicine, a field closely related to kinesiology, studies that tested a hypothesis indicated support for their primary hypothesis ~70% of the time. However, a study of journals that cover the entire field of kinesiology has yet to be completed, and the quality of other reporting practices, such as clinical trial registration, has not been evaluated. In this study we retrospectively evaluated 300 original research articles from the flagship journals of North America (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise), Europe (European Journal of Sport Science), and Australia (Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport). The hypothesis testing rate (~64%) and positive result rate (~81%) were much lower than what has been reported in other fields (e.g., psychology), and there was only weak evidence for our hypothesis that the positive result rate exceeded 80%. However, the positive result rate is still considered unreasonably high. Additionally, most studies did not report trial registration, and rarely included accessible data indicating rather poor reporting practices. The majority of studies relied upon significance testing (~92%), but it was more concerning that a majority of studies (~82%) without a stated hypothesis still relied upon significance testing. Overall, the positive result rate in kinesiology is unacceptably high, despite being lower than other fields such as psychology, and most published manuscripts demonstrated subpar reporting practices

Download Full-text

Replications can cause distorted belief in scientific progress

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18000584 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Michał Białek

Keyword(s):

Real World ◽

Scientific Progress ◽

The Public ◽

Psychological Science

AbstractIf we want psychological science to have a meaningful real-world impact, it has to be trusted by the public. Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.

Download Full-text

Scientific progress is like doing a puzzle, not building a wall

Behavioral and Brain Sciences ◽

10.1017/s0140525x18000900 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 41 ◽

Author(s):

Alexa M. Tullett ◽

Simine Vazire

Keyword(s):

Scientific Progress ◽

Original Research ◽

Jigsaw Puzzle ◽

Replication Research

AbstractWe contest the “building a wall” analogy of scientific progress. We argue that this analogy unfairly privileges original research (which is perceived as laying bricks and, therefore, constructive) over replication research (which is perceived as testing and removing bricks and, therefore, destructive). We propose an alternative analogy for scientific progress: solving a jigsaw puzzle.

Download Full-text