Much of what gets published in scientific journals and is help up as “good science” these days is just an excuse for the authors to show off their math skills. Never mind whether the mathematical models being used correspond to the reality they are supposed to be describing. There is strong incentive based on the “publish or perish” dictum in academia for this trend to continue. Michael Shermer wrote a recent Scientific American article which makes the case well and calls for more integrative and narrative scientific publishing.
Shermer on Science
March 29, 2008 by rafefurst
Posted in Epistemology, Limits of Knowledge | Tagged Epistemology, Limits of Knowledge | No Comments Yet
Leave a Reply
Emergent Tweets-
Top Posts
-
Recent Comments
rafefurst on Biodiversity and Entropy Joshua on Biodiversity and Entropy joe on World’s Best Powerpoint… Save the Madagascar … on Superorganism and Singula… Save the Madagascar … on Willie Smits Is a Genius DocEm on NIH Challenge Grants: Is Compe… Lana Waggoner on Specifying a Climate Bet kevindick on Specifying a Climate Bet Lana Waggoner on Specifying a Climate Bet marissa on Splitting the Difference Category Cloud
Agency Alternative Institutions Cancer Causality Climate Cooperation Crowdsourcing Culture Economics Emergence Epistemology Evolution Government Health Incentives Interventions Levels Limits of Knowledge Markets Medical Breakthroughs Models Networks Politics Psychology Science Singularity Society Socio-technical systems Technology TEDArchives
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007