Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and Unmet Challenges

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE International Studies in the Philosophy of Science Pub Date : 2020-07-02 DOI:10.1080/02698595.2021.1943292
M. Andreoletti
{"title":"Replicability Crisis and Scientific Reforms: Overlooked Issues and Unmet Challenges","authors":"M. Andreoletti","doi":"10.1080/02698595.2021.1943292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Nowadays, almost everyone seems to agree that science is facing an epistemological crisis – namely the replicability crisis – and that we need to take action. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there are no firm answers. Some scholars argue that the current statistical inferential framework is inadequate and therefore we should focus on improving statistical methods. Some others claim instead that the only way to fix science is to change the scientific reward system, promoting quality rather than quantity of scientific publications. However, every positive proposal, either methodological or social, has a valid counterargument. Here I want to make explicit some reasons for explaining the persistence of disagreement on the solutions to the crisis. Focusing on issues which have been overlooked in the debate might help to better evaluate scientific reforms. With this regard, philosophical knowledge can be mobilised to take action in response to the replicability crisis.","PeriodicalId":44433,"journal":{"name":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02698595.2021.1943292","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Studies in the Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2021.1943292","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT Nowadays, almost everyone seems to agree that science is facing an epistemological crisis – namely the replicability crisis – and that we need to take action. But as to precisely what to do or how to do it, there are no firm answers. Some scholars argue that the current statistical inferential framework is inadequate and therefore we should focus on improving statistical methods. Some others claim instead that the only way to fix science is to change the scientific reward system, promoting quality rather than quantity of scientific publications. However, every positive proposal, either methodological or social, has a valid counterargument. Here I want to make explicit some reasons for explaining the persistence of disagreement on the solutions to the crisis. Focusing on issues which have been overlooked in the debate might help to better evaluate scientific reforms. With this regard, philosophical knowledge can be mobilised to take action in response to the replicability crisis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
可复制性危机与科学改革:被忽视的问题和未解决的挑战
如今,几乎每个人似乎都同意科学正面临着认识论危机——即可复制性危机——我们需要采取行动。但确切地说,该做什么或如何做,没有明确的答案。一些学者认为,目前的统计推理框架是不充分的,因此我们应该把重点放在改进统计方法上。另一些人则声称,修复科学的唯一方法是改变科学奖励制度,提高科学出版物的质量而不是数量。然而,每一个积极的建议,无论是方法论的还是社会的,都有一个有效的反驳。在此,我想明确说明一些原因,以解释在危机解决方案上持续存在分歧。关注在辩论中被忽视的问题可能有助于更好地评估科学改革。在这方面,可以动员哲学知识采取行动,以应对可复制性危机。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
自引率
12.50%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: International Studies in the Philosophy of Science is a scholarly journal dedicated to publishing original research in philosophy of science and in philosophically informed history and sociology of science. Its scope includes the foundations and methodology of the natural, social, and human sciences, philosophical implications of particular scientific theories, and broader philosophical reflection on science. The editors invite contributions not only from philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science, but also from researchers in the sciences. The journal publishes articles from a wide variety of countries and philosophical traditions.
期刊最新文献
A Philosopher Looks at Science A Philosopher Looks at Science , by Nancy Cartwright, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2022, 222 pp., $12.99, £9.99 (paperback), ISBN 9781009201889 Schlick and Popper on Causality and Quantum Physics: Origins and Perspectives of the Debate Realism with Quantum Faces: The Leggett–Garg Inequalities as a Case Study for Feyerabend's Views Tightrope-Walking Rationality in Action: Feyerabendian Insights for the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Searching for Features with Artificial Neural Networks in Science: The Problem of Non-Uniqueness
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1