Woohoo! Congratulations!

Abstract Illusions of Understanding in the Sciences raises a concern: Scientists frequently overestimate what they understand about the systems they study. This overestimation is said to potentially distort inference, encourage premature theoretical closure, and undermine public trust in science. We argue that the article fails to distinguish between remediable problems, structural challenges, and genuine cognitive limitations; mistakes individual limitations for system-wide epistemic failures; and treats idealization and pluralism as epistemic concessions rather than constitutive features of scientific endeavor.We believe that the unified ‘illusion’ pathology does not successfully accommodate the organized, socially distributed nature of scientific endeavor

"Against The Pathologization Of Scientific Understanding"

Preprint of a forthcoming commentary from Erkan & me. Pathologization of many scientific processes and practices has become increasingly popular w the replication crisis. Such pathologies do not accurately represent the scientific process.

trudging along but I am finally writing. Full manuscript of Science in Turbulent Times should be ready by the summer. If there is any science left by then.

As @jbakcoleman.bsky.social and I wrote, “Every time a scientist abdicates their work to an AI tool, that is a tacit admission that the work is not worth being done by the scientist.”

Same goes for instructors.

I still remember the gallo pinto…

I might never visit the US again, if no one reserses this nightmarish folly. Overall, they'll not miss me, individually. But there are many me's.

"Science is not broken, and it most certainly is not dying. It is an inefficient human activity....When we catastrophize, we feed a disillusionment which political actors can weaponize to get rid of scientific evidence they find inconvenient."

#AcademicSky 🧪

I'll abstract it away from that case (bec I don't remember who/what). But science could legit be interested in such findings. Not everything interesting will be robust from the getgo. The problem in social sciences is that we often treat that as a discovery instead of an entry point for exploration.

AI, peer review and the human activity of science When researchers cede their scientific judgement to machines, we lose something important.

@carlbergstrom.com and I have a piece on how to think the risks and benefits of LLMs for things like peer review.

www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Having the same issue…

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

It has come my attention that, thanks to a reddit post on r/science, this article with @drmann.bsky.social on the quasi-religious characteristics of right-wing news media is trending. A temporary open access link from Sage below for anyone interested in digging into the argument and framework.

It’s come to my attention that this has come to Dan’s attention. Please proceed accordingly.

Science Magazine gets it wrong. 🧵

We argue RW news is (1) epistemically religious in favoring worldview maintenance/sacred truths over 'mere facts,' (2) functionally religious because it privileges moral community over informing individuals, and (3) ecologically religious because competition and change resemble schismatic dynamics.