Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |
| glossary:cargo_cult [22.08.26, 08:09:48] – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation sascha | glossary:cargo_cult [26.08.26, 08:13:01] (current) – ↷ Links adapted because of a move operation sascha |
|---|
| The motivation not to take the //scientific ethos// (<span maniculus "see also:">[[glossary:mertonian_norms|Mertonian norms]]</span>) quite so strictly can be explained by [[glossary:goodharts_law|Goodhart’s law]] alone, according to which metrics (such as the number of publications as a measure of a scientist's success) are no longer suitable as measures if they become a //goal// – for example, because promotion or the allocation of funds depends on it. If this creates an incentive to over-interpret, misrepresent or simply falsify research results in order to achieve the actual goal of publishing more and more sensational results, then sooner or later this is bound to happen. | The motivation not to take the //scientific ethos// (<span maniculus "see also:">[[glossary:mertonian_norms|Mertonian norms]]</span>) quite so strictly can be explained by [[glossary:goodharts_law|Goodhart’s law]] alone, according to which metrics (such as the number of publications as a measure of a scientist's success) are no longer suitable as measures if they become a //goal// – for example, because promotion or the allocation of funds depends on it. If this creates an incentive to over-interpret, misrepresent or simply falsify research results in order to achieve the actual goal of publishing more and more sensational results, then sooner or later this is bound to happen. |
| |
| Of course, none of this can be an argument for [[rhetoric/red_herrings/ad_hominem/appeal_to_motive|accusing]] scientists of fundamentally flawed practices or even dishonest motives, but it can be understood as a reminder not to be deceived by the outward appearance of a scientific publication (<span maniculus "more information on this topic">[[relevance:authority:index|argument from authority]]</span>) and instead to scrutinise the methods and motivations. This is especially true when a scientific publication seems to confirm one’s own preconceived notions. | Of course, none of this can be an argument for [[relevance:ad_hominem:appeal_to_motive|accusing]] scientists of fundamentally flawed practices or even dishonest motives, but it can be understood as a reminder not to be deceived by the outward appearance of a scientific publication (<span maniculus "more information on this topic">[[relevance:authority:index|argument from authority]]</span>) and instead to scrutinise the methods and motivations. This is especially true when a scientific publication seems to confirm one’s own preconceived notions. |
| |
| ===== See also ===== | ===== See also ===== |
