ArsTechnica has a
series called Scientists on Science, where John Timmer distributes a series of somewhat theoretical questions about scientific procedures and assumptions and discusses the responses. Some excellent stuff like
Explanatory power: What value is given to explanatory power? Do people attempt to make their models as broadly applicable as possible? How much value is placed on predicting phenomena that have yet to be observed?
Peer review: Are peer reviewed publications the most significant means of communicating scientific information in your field? What non-reviewed sources do you rely on?
Evaluation/falsifiability: Do things typically get falsified, or do they drop out of favor well in advance of conclusive falsifying data? What is the evaluation of competing models based on? Can you describe the general characteristics that people base evaluations on? How big a role do changing interpretations of primary data play in falsification?
No comments:
Post a Comment