Konrad HinsenNew blog post: "Going for robustness: science".
How can we make scientific findings and scientific processes more robust?
https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2025/03/25/robustness-in-science.html
"... it is important not to overlook the most important aspect of the [replicability] crisis: an overestimation of how replicable published scientific work can be expected to be."
https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2025/03/25/robustness-in-science.html
Bastian Greshake Tzovaras@khinsen oh, I love that point. I’ve been arguing a similar point: if we agree that science should be falsifiable (and many scientists seem to not even know the concept tbh), then we shouldn’t be surprised that we “fail to reproduce” things, but in many cases that just means we’re collectively learning!
@gedankenstuecke Exactly!
That's the argument in principle. The next step is estimating the expected failure rate. That requires a good understanding of one's methods and their reliability, which many disciplines don't have. And that again is fine as long as everyone is aware of it.
@khinsen exactly that! And computational methods are so poorly understood in those “newer” disciplines!
Interesting to see that OECD shares my view that citizen science matters for making science more robust:
"Citizen participation opens and democratises research processes. When this is done with transparency and inclusivity, it can increase the legitimacy of, and trust in, science, policy and scientific authorities."
https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2025/04/what-is-citizen-science-and-why-should-policymakers-care.html
Olivier Leroy@khinsen kids also love it (weirdly your link do not mention schools/kids...)
@defuneste I suppose that OECD does not consider kids very relevant for international politics. Which just means that they think a bit short-term.
An interesting outlook on the future of science:
"AI as the Catalyst of the New Paradigm of Science?"
https://cadmusjournal.org/article/volume-5-issue-4/ai-catalyst-new-paradigm-science
The title suggests an AI focus, but I find the discussion of the place of science in society much more interesting (and I happen to agree with much of it). That's the intersection with my blog post on making science robust:
https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2025/03/25/robustness-in-science.html
vintage screwlisp account@khinsen there's a widespread sense in NZ that masters degrees have the same meaning now that highschool diplomas had fifty years ago, and doctorates bachelors. I wonder if the use of advanced statistics shows the theory is robust.
You didn't review any of Sandewall's work on open peer review or anything did you? I never really got into that track of his work.
@screwtape I try to follow work on peer reviewing techniques, but probably I am missing much of it. All I have seen focuses on how peer review is organized: who participates, who can consult it. I haven't seen anyone question the principle that peer reviewers work individually, in isolation.
@khinsen It's basically of historical significance but I regard the author as having been historically significant in general, so. https://www.ida.liu.se/ext/morador/
Oops I meant ADEPT.
https://www.ida.liu.se/ext/adept/
@screwtape Thanks for those links, I wasn't aware of this very early work on the topic!
@khinsen Don't remind me that 2006 was /very early work/ plz
Joseph Salmon@khinsen excellent read!