These fine gentlemen want to reshape science.

Science 2011, 331, 721-725. (DOI: 10.1126/science.1201765)

“We argue that as metaknowledge grows in breadth and quality, it will enable researchers to reshape science—to identify areas in need of reexamination, reweight former certainties, and point out new paths that cut across revealed assumptions, heuristics, and disciplinary boundaries.”

ROFL

For the record, I want to reshape Buddhism, house music and pregnant women’s belly buttons. I call this meta-sarcasm. The difference is I don’t go ahead and publish this crap. Oh snap, I think I just did?

Anyhoo…

lol cat

Buy Me A Coffee :) @ ko-fi.com
 

4 Responses to Science bullshit

  1. But, I don’t understand your point, I mean, ok, is not the best topic, or maybe the way they are carrying it, but anyway, i really think that approaching to a better understanding of new elements of info-sharing and evaluating, is not only a good starting but something necessary to improve our point of views about science and science publishing. I would like hear (read, oh my!) more about your opinion. Probably, i didn’t catch’ya in that post. :)

    • drfreddy says:

      “Reshaping science” is a tautology to me. The beauty of science is that it repairs itself over time. No need for bullshitters without basic degrees in relevant areas to state the obvious.

  2. Sorry, Freddy but I’m with Santiago in that I don’t see you point, or, worse might go so far as to say you’re wrong on this, imho.

    Certainly you’re right that science is self-correcting. But the Science article authors aren’t disputing that or claiming anything inconsistent with it (at least not in the quote you provided).

    They write in a horrible style gently reminiscent of the Sokal Hoax, but their meaning is actually ok. What they obviously mean is that metaknowledge is expanding (true), and may lead to the identification of new challenges in science, the questioning of assumptions and reveal new ways we can tackle problems. Nothing wrong with any of that.

  3. drfreddy says:

    I hate it when non-scientists tell us how to do science. That is correct, the authors of this article are not scientists. Read the full paper – look them up. My humble opinion is that they are professional bullshitters, not as humans, but as scientists. I am very well familiar with this kind of rhetorics. Meta-knowledge sounds great. It means nothing.

    I know nothing about Buddhism, I don’t care about Buddhism and I would not tell a Buddhist how to practise his religion.

    On a personal level, there is more to this. But I am for many reasons unable to speak about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *