successful science
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

67
(FIVE YEARS 20)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 2)

Author(s):  
Pal Swarup ◽  
Ghosh Sudip

In this essay, I have attempted to defense the possibility of objectivity in case of social science research. It is basically an evaluation of Max Weber’s interpretation in maintaining the possibility of objectivity in social science. There is a long tradition in the philosophy of social science maintaing a sharp distinction between social science and natural science in terms of both goals as well as method; and there is no doubt about that natural sciences have the higher degree of objectivity in comparison with social science. It is not possible to maintain absolute objectivity in case of social science research. But, by following some tricksit is possible to make a social inquiry more reliable and justifiable.This paper aims to improve such tricks as well as such a unique methodology adopted by Max Weber through which it is possible to maintain objectivity in social science as well as to establish social science as a successful science. Keywords: Max Weber, Objectivity, Social Science, Natural Science, Value-free Ideal, Theory-Ladenness, Value-Neutrality


Synthese ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haixin Dang ◽  
Liam Kofi Bright

AbstractWe argue that the main results of scientific papers may appropriately be published even if they are false, unjustified, and not believed to be true or justified by their author. To defend this claim we draw upon the literature studying the norms of assertion, and consider how they would apply if one attempted to hold claims made in scientific papers to their strictures, as assertions and discovery claims in scientific papers seem naturally analogous. We first use a case study of William H. Bragg’s early twentieth century work in physics to demonstrate that successful science has in fact violated these norms. We then argue that features of the social epistemic arrangement of science which are necessary for its long run success require that we do not hold claims of scientific results to their standards. We end by making a suggestion about the norms that it would be appropriate to hold scientific claims to, along with an explanation of why the social epistemology of science—considered as an instance of collective inquiry—would require such apparently lax norms for claims to be put forward.


Erkenntnis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Currie

AbstractDespite wide recognition that speculation is critical for successful science, philosophers have attended little to it. When they have, speculation has been characterized in narrowly epistemic terms: a hypothesis is speculative due to its (lack of) evidential support. These ‘evidence-first’ accounts provide little guidance for what makes speculation productive or egregious, nor how to foster the former while avoiding the latter. I examine how scientists discuss speculation and identify various functions speculations play. On this basis, I develop a ‘function-first’ account of speculation. This analysis grounds a richer discussion of when speculation is egregious and when it is productive, based in both fine-grained analysis of the speculation’s purpose, and what I call the ‘epistemic situation’ scientists face.


Design Issues ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 59-71
Author(s):  
Annina Schneller

Abstract The communication of scientific knowledge is traditionally oriented towards objective truth and facts, and builds on the authority of science. This article argues that, besides or even opposite to these aims, creating authenticity has become a major factor of successful science communication. Conveying a “personal touch,” or giving the audience a feeling of “being real,” are crucial promoters of credibility. Significant methods of gaining trust and sympathy on the level of textual as well as visual presentation are disclosed by exploring a bestselling popular scientific book, and with references to ancient rhetorical texts.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastiaan T Rutjens ◽  
Esther Niehoff ◽  
Steven Heine

Recent years have not only seen growing public distrust in science, but also in the people conducting science. Yet, attitudes toward scientists remain largely unexplored, and the limited body of literature that exists points to an interesting ambivalence. While survey data suggest scientists to be highly respected, research has found scientists to be perceived as capable of immoral behavior. We report two experiments aimed at identifying what contributes to this ambivalence through systematic investigations of stereotypical perceptions of scientists. In these studies, we particularly focus on two potential sources of inconsistencies in previous work: divergent operationalizations of morality (measurement effects), and different specifications of the broad group of scientists (framing effects). Results show that scientists are generally perceived as more likely to violate binding as opposed to individualizing moral foundations, and that they deviate from control groups more strongly on the latter. The extent to which different morality measures reflect the differentiation between binding and individualizing moral foundations at least partially accounts for previous contradictory findings. Moreover, the results indicate large variation in perceptions of different types of scientists: People hold more positive attitudes toward university-affiliated scientists as compared to industry-affiliated scientists, with perceptions of the ‘typical scientist’ more closely resembling the latter. Taken together, the findings have important academic ramifications for science skepticism, morality, and stereotyping research as well as valuable practical implications for successful science communication.


2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (05) ◽  
pp. A04 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaitlyn Martin ◽  
Lloyd Davis ◽  
Susan Sandretto

Student engagement is an important predictor of choosing science-related careers and establishing a scientifically literate society: and, worryingly, it is on the decline internationally. Conceptions of science are strongly affected by school experience, so one strategy is to bring successful science communication strategies to the classroom. Through a project creating short science films on mobile devices, students' engagement greatly increased through collaborative learning and the storytelling process. Teachers were also able to achieve cross-curricular goals between science, technology, and literacy. We argue that empowering adolescents as storytellers, rather than storylisteners, is an effective method to increase engagement with science.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Schreiber ◽  
Jeffrey Bilmes ◽  
William Stafford Noble

AbstractSuccessful science often involves not only performing experiments well, but also choosing well among many possible experiments. In a hypothesis generation setting, choosing an experiment well means choosing an experiment whose results are interesting or novel. In this work, we formalize this selection procedure in the context of genomics and epigenomics data generation. Specifically, we consider the task faced by a scientific consortium such as the National Institutes of Health ENCODE Consortium, whose goal is to characterize all of the functional elements in the human genome. Given a list of possible cell types or tissue types (“biosamples”) and a list of possible high throughput sequencing assays, we ask “Which experiments should ENCODE perform next?” We demonstrate how to represent this task as an optimization problem, where the goal is to maximize the information gained in each successive experiment. Compared with previous work that has addressed a similar problem, our approach has the advantage that it can use imputed data to tailor the selected list of experiments based on data collected previously by the consortium. We demonstrate the utility of our proposed method in simulations, and we provide a general software framework, named Kiwano, for selecting genomic and epigenomic experiments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document