Recent Posts
- Principles of biological computation: from circadian clock to evolution
- The science and engineering of biological computation: from process to software to DNA-based neural networks
- Elements of biological computation & stochastic thermodynamics of life
- Rationality, the Bayesian mind and their limits
- Web of C-lief: conjectures vs. model assumptions vs. scientific beliefs
- Idealization vs abstraction for mathematical models of evolution
- Allegory of the replication crisis in algorithmic trading
- 668,212 views
Join 2,752 other subscribers
Contributing authors
-
Abel Molina
-
Alexandru Strimbu
-
Alexander Yartsev
-
Eric Bolo
-
David Robert Grimes
-
Forrest Barnum
-
Jill Gallaher
-
Julian Xue
-
Artem Kaznatcheev
-
Keven Poulin
-
Marcel Montrey
-
Matthew Wicker
-
Dan Nichol
-
Philip Gerlee
-
Piotr MigdaĆ
-
Robert Vander Velde
-
Rob Noble
-
Sergio Graziosi
-
Max Hartshorn
-
Thomas Shultz
-
Vincent Cannataro
-
Yunjun Yang
Danger of motivatiogenesis in interdisciplinary work
March 15, 2019 by Artem Kaznatcheev 7 Comments
1. Somebody makes up a factoid and writes it somewhere without citation.
2. Another person then uses the factoid in passing in a more authoritative work, maybe sighting the point in 1 or not.
3. Further work inherits the citation from 2, without verifying its source, further enhancing the legitimacy of the factoid.
4. The cycle repeats.
Soon, everybody knows this factoid and yet there is no ground truth to back it up. I’m sure we can all think of some popular examples. Social media certainly seems to make this sort of loop easier.
We see this occasionally in science, too. Back in 2012, Daniel Lemire provided a nice example of this with algorithms research. But usually with science factoids, it eventually gets debuked with new experiments or proofs. Mostly because it can be professionally rewarding to show that a commonly assumed factoid is actually false.
But there is a similar effect in science that seems to me even more common, and much harder to correct: motivatiogenesis.
Motivatiogenesis can be especially easy to fall into with interdisiplinary work. Especially if we don’t challenge ourselves to produce work that is an advance in both (and not just one) of the fields we’re bridging.
Read more of this post
Filed under Commentary, Meta, Personal Tagged with cognitive science, metamodeling, neuroscience, operationalization, philosophy of science