[FRIAM] IS: Rhetoric in scientific arguments WAS: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

[glen ☣]

This one too ... though for some reason I thought someone had already posted it.

Incentive Malus
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21707513-poor-scientific-methods-may-be-hereditary-incentive-malus


On 03/03/2017 09:37 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
> The article referenced in that blog post turns out to be open access and
> pretty pertinent, too.
> 
>   http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384
> 
> The natural selection of bad science, Paul E. Smaldino, Richard McElreath,
> 
> -- rec --
> 
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 12:25 PM, Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org> wrote:
> 
>> Here's a spin on Eric's question about how is trusting a scientist
>> different from trusting an authority or a scholar.
>>
>>  http://sometimesimwrong.typepad.com/wrong/2017/03/
>> looking-under-the-hood.html
>>
>> concludes
>>
>> but, you might say, scientists *are *more trustworthy than used car
>>> dealers!  sure,****** but we are also supposed to be more committed to
>>> transparency.  indeed, transparency is a hallmark of science - it's
>>> basically what makes science different from other ways of knowing (e.g.,
>>> authority, intuition, etc.).  in other words, it's what makes us better
>>> than used car dealers.
>>
>>
>> The proposal is that authors of papers need to share more about the
>> context of the paper so journals and readers get stuck with fewer lemons.

-- 
☣ glen