Science only works when communities of real people talk to each other and collectively hash out what matters to them. Automation and metricification are lean heavily on maximizing a few quantitative criteria, which, as we see over and over again, keep making things worse.
Of course, science is a reflection of the larger society its embedded in. That society is pretty sick right now. But in science as in the rest of life, good people are doing good work. Let's maybe try to incentivize the good, prosocial behaviors and not the bad, selfish ones, shall we?
I last published in a Frontiers journal in 2012, when I thought their publishing model was bad. It's SO much worse now, but also such a stark consequences of the pathology of publications-as-currency plaguing academia.
There’s nothing more awe-inspiring than watching a carpenter bee eat a woodpecker.
I couldn’t be prouder of the stellar work @apvelilla.bsky.social did for his PhD. A phenomenal set of work on social learning, cooperation, and risk. Keep on eye on this guy, he’s one to watch.
There’s nothing more awe-inspiring than watching a carpenter bee eat a woodpecker.
Richard @rmcelreath.bsky.social and I wrote The Natural Selection of Bad Science over a decade ago, and it's been very frustrating to watch the process get worse rather than better in many cases. doi.org/10.1098/rsos...
Paul Smaldino
Paul Smaldino
Paul Smaldino
Paul Smaldino
Paul Smaldino
Paul Smaldino
Paul Smaldino
Fifty years since a simple equation described the chaos of biology 🧪🌐 www.nature.com/articles/d41...
DOCTOR: "So what seems to be the problem?"
PATIENT: "Mmhbbhhggr hhruuh engghhuu."
DOCTOR: "I'm sorry I can't understand, but don't worry. Great singer Bob Dylan is in town. Go see his show and no matter what ails you, you'll feel better!"
PATIENT (sadly): "Ehg ddnghh m'm Bddnnn."
