Abstract
In the last decade, many problematic cases of scientific conduct have been diagnosed; some of which involve outright fraud (e.g., Stapel, 2012) others are more subtle (e.g., supposed evidence of extrasensory perception; Bem, 2011). These and similar problems can be interpreted as caused by lack of scientific objectivity. The current philosophical theories of objectivity do not provide scientists with conceptualizations that can be effectively put into practice in remedying these issues. We propose a novel way of thinking about objectivity for individual scientists; a negative and dynamic approach.We provide a philosophical conceptualization of objectivity that is informed by empirical research. In particular, it is our intention to take the first steps in providing an empirically and methodologically informed inventory of factors that impair the scientific practice. The inventory will be compiled into a negative conceptualization (i.e., what is not objective), which could in principle be used by individual scientists to assess (deviations from) objectivity of scientific practice. We propose a preliminary outline of a usable and testable instrument for indicating the objectivity of scientific practice.
Highlights
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool
We propose a novel way of thinking about objectivity for individual scientists; a negative and dynamic approach.We provide a philosophical conceptualization of objectivity that is informed by empirical research
The inventory will be compiled into a negative conceptualization, which could in principle be used by individual scientists to assess objectivity of scientific practice
Summary
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Objectivity can be attributed, among others, to scientific measurements, tools for development/improvement of scientific theories, and/or to true-to-nature explanations It ensures that study outcomes are not biased (e.g., over estimation of drug efficacy, under estimation of risk; Goldacre, 2014), positive research results are not false-positives (to a larger proportion than is allowed by the statistical method; Simmons et al, 2011), and are independently reproducible by other scientists (Simons, 2014; Lindsay, 2015; Altmejd et al, 2019; van Bavel et al, 2016). Dr Summers realizes that science could greatly benefit from having a definition of ‘objectivity’ that can be explicated in a quantitative or qualitative assessment of scientific practice
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
