Jul 20, 2018 03:45 AM
Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...5/1/171511
ABSTRACT: Scientific publication is immensely important to the scientific endeavour. There is, however, concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive, allowing careless and fraudulent conduct to thrive, compounded by the predisposition of top-tier journals towards novel, positive findings rather than investigations confirming null hypothesis. This potentially compounds a reproducibility crisis in several fields, and risks undermining science and public trust in scientific findings. To date, there has been comparatively little modelling on factors that influence science trustworthiness, despite the importance of quantifying the problem. We present a simple phenomenological model with cohorts of diligent, careless and unethical scientists, with funding allocated by published outputs. This analysis suggests that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.
MORE: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...5/1/171511
The Brainwashing Myth
http://theconversation.com/the-brainwashing-myth-99272
EXCERPT: . . . . In the wake of this tragedy, you might think that I would be amenable to the idea that they had been brainwashed. [...But...] I reject the idea of brainwashing for three reasons: It is pseudoscientific, ignores research-based explanations for human behavior and dehumanizes people by denying their free will.
Brainwashing is used so frequently to describe religious conversions that it has a certain panache to it, as if it were based in scientific theory. But brainwashing presents what scientists call an “untestable hypothesis.” In order for a theory to be considered scientifically credible, it must be falsifiable; that is, it must be able to be proven incorrect. For example, as soon as things fall up instead of down, we will know that the theory of gravity is false. Since we cannot really prove that brainwashing does not exist, it fails to meet the standard criteria of the scientific method.
In addition, there seems to be no way to have a conversation about brainwashing: you either accept it or you don’t. You can’t argue with someone who says “I was brainwashed.” But real science seeks argument and disagreement, as scholars challenge their colleagues’ theories and presuppositions.
Finally, if brainwashing really existed, more people would join and stay in these groups. But studies have shown that members of new religions generally leave the group within a few years of joining.
Even advocates of brainwashing theories are abandoning the term in the face of such criticism, using more scientific-sounding expressions such as “thought reform” and “coercive persuasion” in its stead.
Once we move beyond brainwashing as an explanation for people’s behaviors, we can actually learn quite a bit about why individuals are drawn to new ideas and alternative religions or make choices at odds with their previous lifestyles. There are at least three scientific, neutral and precise terms that can replace brainwashing....
MORE: http://theconversation.com/the-brainwashing-myth-99272
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...5/1/171511
ABSTRACT: Scientific publication is immensely important to the scientific endeavour. There is, however, concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive, allowing careless and fraudulent conduct to thrive, compounded by the predisposition of top-tier journals towards novel, positive findings rather than investigations confirming null hypothesis. This potentially compounds a reproducibility crisis in several fields, and risks undermining science and public trust in scientific findings. To date, there has been comparatively little modelling on factors that influence science trustworthiness, despite the importance of quantifying the problem. We present a simple phenomenological model with cohorts of diligent, careless and unethical scientists, with funding allocated by published outputs. This analysis suggests that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.
MORE: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/c...5/1/171511
The Brainwashing Myth
http://theconversation.com/the-brainwashing-myth-99272
EXCERPT: . . . . In the wake of this tragedy, you might think that I would be amenable to the idea that they had been brainwashed. [...But...] I reject the idea of brainwashing for three reasons: It is pseudoscientific, ignores research-based explanations for human behavior and dehumanizes people by denying their free will.
Brainwashing is used so frequently to describe religious conversions that it has a certain panache to it, as if it were based in scientific theory. But brainwashing presents what scientists call an “untestable hypothesis.” In order for a theory to be considered scientifically credible, it must be falsifiable; that is, it must be able to be proven incorrect. For example, as soon as things fall up instead of down, we will know that the theory of gravity is false. Since we cannot really prove that brainwashing does not exist, it fails to meet the standard criteria of the scientific method.
In addition, there seems to be no way to have a conversation about brainwashing: you either accept it or you don’t. You can’t argue with someone who says “I was brainwashed.” But real science seeks argument and disagreement, as scholars challenge their colleagues’ theories and presuppositions.
Finally, if brainwashing really existed, more people would join and stay in these groups. But studies have shown that members of new religions generally leave the group within a few years of joining.
Even advocates of brainwashing theories are abandoning the term in the face of such criticism, using more scientific-sounding expressions such as “thought reform” and “coercive persuasion” in its stead.
Once we move beyond brainwashing as an explanation for people’s behaviors, we can actually learn quite a bit about why individuals are drawn to new ideas and alternative religions or make choices at odds with their previous lifestyles. There are at least three scientific, neutral and precise terms that can replace brainwashing....
MORE: http://theconversation.com/the-brainwashing-myth-99272