Scientific conclusions need not be accurate, justified, or believed by their authors

@article{Dang2021ScientificCN,
  title={Scientific conclusions need not be accurate, justified, or believed by their authors},
  author={Haixin Dang and Liam Kofi Bright},
  journal={Synthese},
  year={2021},
  pages={1-17}
}
We argue that the main results of scientific papers may appropriately be published even if they are false, unjustified, and not believed to be true or justified by their author. To defend this claim we draw upon the literature studying the norms of assertion, and consider how they would apply if one attempted to hold claims made in scientific papers to their strictures, as assertions and discovery claims in scientific papers seem naturally analogous. We first use a case study of William H… Expand

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 83 REFERENCES
The Epistemic Norms of Intra-Scientific Testimony
What is the epistemic position that a scientist must be in vis-à-vis a proposition, p, to be in a good enough epistemic position to assert that p to a fellow scientist within the scientific process?Expand
Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives
The incredible achievements of modern scientific theories lead most of us to embrace scientific realism: the view that our best theories offer us at least roughly accurate descriptions of otherwiseExpand
The Credit Economy and the Economic Rationality of Science
Theories of scientific rationality typically pertain to belief. This paper argues that we should expand our focus to include motivations as well as belief. An economic model is used to evaluateExpand
How the Laws of Physics Lie.
Nancy Cartwright argues for a novel conception of the role of fundamental scientific laws in modern natural science. If we attend closely to the manner in which theoretical laws figure in theExpand
How the growth of science ends theory change
TLDR
This paper outlines a defense of scientific realism against the pessimistic meta-induction which appeals to the phenomenon of the exponential growth of science and offers a framework through which scientific realism can be compared with two types of anti-realism. Expand
Belief is not the issue: A defence of inference to the best explanation
Defences of inference to the best explanation (IBE) frequently associate IBE with scientific realism, the idea that it is reasonable to believe our best scientific theories. I argue that this linkageExpand
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
TLDR
A large-scale assessment suggests that experimental reproducibility in psychology leaves a lot to be desired, and correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams. Expand
Publishing without belief
Is there anything wrong with publishing philosophical work which one does not believe (publishing without belief, henceforth referred to as ‘PWB’)? I argue that there is not: the practice isn’tExpand
How much evidence should one collect?
A number of philosophers of science and statisticians have attempted to justify conclusions drawn from a finite sequence of evidence by appealing to results about what happens if the length of thatExpand
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies onExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...