When you read the literatur of a paper arguing "X", I would expect to have in the paper colleagues arguing "no-X". From the literature on climate change I have several examples of it.
In other words, it seems that in science you can carry on your argument without even noticing contraarguments, i.e., citing studies supporting your claims...and you will get nevertheless citations, followers, shraings, likes and so on.
I would pretty much like to hear your thoughts or experiences.
There are at least two comments to make. Your first remark made me connect to the time when I took sociology class - in which anything could be criticised - whether it was rational or not - or so it appeared.
Next: Not all sciences live in a bubble. Natural scientists are working hard every day to answer questions, whether it concerns experiments among the smallest or largest phenomena; mathematicians aid in explaining dynamical systems, wherever they are, and so on.
Finally: It appears - to me - that scientists are more in a hurry today. A decade or more ago I did not witness that much stress, but today publishing appears to be done faster. Is it because one needs to be first, in some sense, with something?
By the way - in mathematics we use logical contra-arguments very often - in order to establish what we wanted to achieve through the utilization of negation.
The literature of scientific papers seems like a bubble when it is old and inconsistent and does not reflect the subject of research and is not proven by clear scientific facts
Shakir Tuleab: which literature are you referring to? And what scientific facts?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers