Don’t say “Darwin” when you mean “evolution” (part 1)

Originally posted on Eat Your Brains Out; Exploring Science, Exposing Creationism:

Part I,Dalton and Darwin

Don’t say “Darwin” when you mean “evolution”. Don’t say “theory of evolution” when you mean the established historical facts of change over time and common descent. And above all, don’t say “Darwin’s theory of evolution” except in the historical context of the evolution of ideas. If you do, you are guilty of scientific, logical, historical, and pedagogical errors, and playing into the hands of our Creationist opponents.

Dalton is to the modern atomic theory, and the modern atomic theory is to chemistry, as Darwin(not to forget Wallace) is to evolution, and as evolution is to biology. But we don’t call our present perspective on atoms “Dalton’s theory”, and indeed, unless we are speaking historically, it sounds odd to even talk about “atomic theory” when we discuss atoms. So why should we refer to “Darwin’s theory”, and indeed why should we talk about the…

View original 979 more words

NSF Gets an Earful about Replication

jbrittholbrook:

Interesting stuff here …. I wonder about possible connections with H.R. 4012 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4012/text).

Originally posted on funderstorms:

I spent last Thursday and Friday (February 20 and 21) at an NSF workshop concerning the replicability of research results. It was chaired by John Cacioppo and included about 30 participants including such well-known contributors to the discussion as Brian Nosek, Hal Pashler, Eric Eich, and Tony Greenwald, to name a few.  Participants also included officials from NIH, NSF, the White House Office on Science and Technology and at least one private foundation. I was invited, I presume, in my capacity as Past-President of SPSP and chair of an SPSP task force on research practices which recently published a report on non-retracted PSPB articles by investigators who retracted articles elsewhere, and a set of recommendations for research and educational practice, which was just published in PSPR.

Committees, task forces and workshops – whatever you call them – about replicability issues have become almost commonplace.  The SPSP Task Force was preceded…

View original 1,950 more words

Inside Higher Ed | A call to embrace silos

An interview with Jerry A. Jacobs, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania regarding his new book, In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University (University of Chicago Press). The article also features a short reply by Robert Frodeman, professor of philosophy and founding director of the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity at the University of North Texas, and author of Sustainable Knowledge: A Theory of Interdisciplinarity (Macmillan), which critiques ‘disciplinarity’.

Knowledge kills action – Why principles should play a limited role in policy making

This essay argues that principles should play a limited role in policy making. It first illustrates the dilemma of timely action in the face of uncertain unintended consequences. It then introduces the precautionary and proactionary principles as different alignments of knowledge and action within the policymaking process. The essay next considers a cynical and a hopeful reading of the role of these principles in public policy debates. We argue that the two principles, despite initial appearances, are not all that different when it comes to formulating public policy. We also suggest that allowing principles to determine our actions undermines the sense of autonomy necessary for true action.

What’s productive enough for tenure?

jbrittholbrook:

Although I do think it’s got something to do with being a snowflake (http://jbrittholbrook.com/2013/06/21/snowflake-indicators-postmodern-research-evaluation-part-5-of/), I also see some food for thought and wisdom in this post (which I found on Twitter courtesy of @egonwillighagen).

Originally posted on :

imageA lot hand wringing on the tenure track (and the job hunt) is about publication number and venue. I don’t think I have much more to say on venue (other than I do get the sense that perceptions might be starting to shift), but number is interesting. My operating assumption here is, with apologies to Dobzhansky, Nothing in academic careerism makes sense except in light of local tribal norms. This is why all attempts to have standard metrics (alt* or otherwise) are doomed and ridiculous. The relevant tribes here are your field, department, and university. Look at these tribes, because Twitter and blogs don’t have these answers, and you will go crazy trying to parse and apply the various norms of other tribes in your own context.

I was thinking of this because recently Potnia Theron (who is on a tear of incredibly useful blogging) blogged about someone who was…

View original 911 more words