Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 89
3/15/2024, 7:06:05 PM
X
In reply to:
Derya Unutmaz, MD
@DeryaTR_
·
571d
@GaryMarcus Where is the data that shows this slows down science? In scientific terms, not by cherry-picking anecdotal evidence of a few bad examples & making generalizations.
This is not the scientific method.

In contast, technological acceleration has always helped to advance science.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
571d
E/Accs, Do you understand that if the apparatus of science grinds down because the stuff you advocated backfires, you will actually have 𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 science?

The statement is part of a critical discussion on the impact of certain practices on the peer review process and the pace of scientific progress. The tone is concerned and cautionary, with an intent to critique what the author perceives as a potential problem in scientific review processes. The content addresses the efficiency of peer review and the trustworthiness of scientific publications.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not seem to intend harm but rather expresses a concern for the scientific community. It is critical but not harmful. [+1]
  2. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks a promotion of understanding, empathy, or compassion, focusing instead on a logical critique of a process.
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive criticism by pointing out a potential flaw in an argument and the consequences of a process on science. [+1]