Scientific Controversies: Authentic and Contrived [post-print]
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ControversyScience is more of a journey than a destination.And, as to be expected of any journey taken by diverse travellers to an unexplored place, there may arise disagreements over how to get there, what is seen, and what it all means.If the place is relatively unimportant and the number of travellers few, the discord rarely spreads far.But if the destination is important, the travellers are many, and the outcome of getting there (or not) is consequential, disagreements can escalate into a broadly sweeping controversy with a lot at stake.Some 25 years ago, I had the pleasure of contributing an invited paper (M P Silverman, 1992, "Raising Questions: Philosophical Significance of Controversy in Science", Science & Education 1: 163-179) to the inaugural volume of this journal on the provocative topic of the significance of controversy in science.The article was based in part on a course I was teaching-Role and Resolution of Controversy in Science-since about 1987.One objective of this course was to counter what I perceived at the time to be an unhealthy tendency of the public to accept uncritically the daily reports in the news media of scientific advances.What made that tendency societally unhealthy in my view was (a) news reports of such advances were often premature, inaccurate, or totally false-a state of affairs effectively (and hilariously) highlighted in recent times by "philosopher-comedian" John Oliver (Scientific Studies: Last Week Tonight, HBO, 8 May 2016); and (b) the misunderstanding by the public that scientific knowledge was certain and unassailable.In the opening words of my 1992 article: Turn on the radio; hear the announcer report: "Scientists have found that"; and you can be sure that one more seemingly unimpeachable fact has entered the mainstream of public belief.Much has changed in the past quarter century.Today, with the veritable torrent of (mis)information coursing through networks of social media, as well as traditional journalism, the position of much of the public (at least in the US, if not also elsewhere) in regard to science has reversed itself.My concern today is that much of the public, deluged by contradictory assertions by presumed authorities and handicapped by a deteriorating public educational system that teaches science too late and badly, cannot distinguish real science from nonsense, and so distrusts any science as transient and
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle