Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

Darwin's Fishes: Conventions used in the text

/pdf/the-technological-infrastructure-of-science-comments-on-2rwm5ixeht.pdf

The Technological Infrastructure of Science: Comments on Baird, Fitzpatrick and Pitt

John Ioannidis, a highly respected medical researcher, has a serious bone to pick—with the modern practitioners of the Galilean hypothetico-deductive model-data duality discussed in Chap. 6. Ioannidis’ 2005 paper, provocatively titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” has been the most downloaded technical paper in PLoS Medicine and one of the single most cited and downloaded papers in the past decade (J. P. A. Ioannidis, 2005; Ioannidis et al., 2001). In it, Ioannidis analyzed “49 of the most highly regarded research findings in medicine over the previous 13 years” comparing them with data from subsequent studies with larger sample sizes. His findings included the following: 7 (16 %) of the original studies were contradicted, 7 (16 %) of the effects were smaller than in the initial study, 20 (44 %) were replicated, and 11 (24 %) of the studies remained largely unchallenged (D. H. Freedman, 2010; J. P. A. Ioannidis, 2005; Liberati et al., 2009; McCarthy et al., 2008).

Research Structure and Paradigms

John McCumber's Time in the Ditch: American Philosophy and the McCarthy Era provides a compelling account of a repressed part of philosophy's history and its tragic consequences for subsequent decades of philosophic practice in the U.S. Political values and interests originating in McCarthyism got encoded within abstract conceptual frameworks, propelling analytic philosophy to an undeserved position of authority while depriving it of critical self-understanding. This comment identifies residues of McCarthyism still playing out in the ‘Science Wars’, and the career of critical philosophic projects in both other disciplines and philosophy's feminist and multicultural fringes.

American Philosophy as a Technototem

Few studies consider how changes in science studies education might reduce barriers to fruitful engagement with scientific practices. This paper is co-authored by the participants and instructor of a small interdisciplinary graduate seminar at the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada. The seminar reflected on the role of value-judgments in science, considering the learning experiences of a science studies student (AR, first author) and four students (of a total of six students registered in the seminar) who have backgrounds in the sciences (JA, GG, BHW, SL), their responses to course materials, and outlines lessons learned with respect to interdisciplinary communication. AR was surprised to find that the science students enjoyed reading and engaging with science studies texts as she thought they would be apprehensive about the epistemic content, but they thought the texts effectively illustrated that science is influenced by social factors. Instead of expressing concerns about epistemic issues, the science students’ critiques pertained to the length of texts and writing style. They also felt that some texts “unfairly” attacked scientists, and could be “dry,” “abstract,” and overly “problem-focused” without offering concrete solutions. This study suggests that interventions which explicitly encourage conversation and collaboration between students in science studies and the sciences more broadly can play a crucial role in dismantling unknowingly held simplistic views of other disciplines. It also speaks to the critical necessity of broad interdisciplinary scholarship which explicitly includes both the natural sciences and humanities. AR noted she initially believed that science students would react negatively to outsiders’ critiques of the sciences and concluded that science studies education ought to include meaningful engagement with practicing scientists, which is rarely the case. This study illustrates the importance of using texts which have a style and vocabulary not felt as disparaging towards scientists when introducing science students or researchers to concepts in science studies. It also points to the need for studies investigating how students from different research backgrounds may learn to “see” their use of jargon and the implicit assumptions they make about their listeners’ familiarity or understanding of a specific idea.

/pdf/changing-debates-and-shifting-landscapes-in-science-studies-17qtva9o.pdf

Changing Debates and Shifting Landscapes in Science Studies: Exploring How Graduate Students with Varied Backgrounds Think About the Role of Value-Judgments in Science

Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science

Citations

Darwin's Fishes: Conventions used in the text

The Technological Infrastructure of Science: Comments on Baird, Fitzpatrick and Pitt

Research Structure and Paradigms

American Philosophy as a Technototem

Changing Debates and Shifting Landscapes in Science Studies: Exploring How Graduate Students with Varied Backgrounds Think About the Role of Value-Judgments in Science

Related Papers (5)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

We Have Never Been Modern

Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature

The Social Construction of What

Science in action : how to follow scientists and engineers through society