Difference between revisions of "Open science and society"
(Bellingcat removed) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Open science promotes open society | '''Open science promotes open society | ||
| − | Researchers are rapidly learning to use big data, and online tools enable collaboration in self-organised groups. It is time to revisit how science could be done in a better way. Ideally, science is open collaboration among | + | Researchers are rapidly learning to use big data, and online tools enable collaboration in self-organised groups. It is time to revisit how science could be done in a better way. |
| + | |||
| + | Ideally, science is open collaboration among people who share their data<ref name="alldata">van Assen MALM, van Aert RCM, Nuijten MB, Wicherts JM. Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results. PLOS One 2014. {{doi|10.1371/journal.pone.0084896}} [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084896]</ref>, | ||
develop research questions, and formulate hypotheses as answers. Then they falsify hypotheses using all available data - not e.g. prestige of speakers. Whatever holds against criticism is treated as the current best description about the reality. | develop research questions, and formulate hypotheses as answers. Then they falsify hypotheses using all available data - not e.g. prestige of speakers. Whatever holds against criticism is treated as the current best description about the reality. | ||
It seems that we already can make this ideal come true. | It seems that we already can make this ideal come true. | ||
| − | Assume a website where scientific rules are strictly applied: An issue is formulated as question and is given a permanent page for contributions. All contributions are welcome, but work aims at answering the question, and relevance is always required. Answers' coherence to data and related questions is continually checked and corrected, unlike now | + | Assume a website where scientific rules are strictly applied: An issue is formulated as question and is given a permanent page for contributions. All contributions are welcome, but work aims at answering the question, and relevance is always required. Answers' coherence to data and related questions is continually checked and corrected, unlike now<ref name= "allison">Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature 530, 27–29 (04 February 2016) {{doi|10.1038/530027a}}</ref>. |
Falsified hypotheses are kept visible to avoid repetition of previous mistakes. | Falsified hypotheses are kept visible to avoid repetition of previous mistakes. | ||
| − | We have successfully tested this in several cases | + | We have successfully and efficiently tested this in several cases, some with intensive discussions requiring moderation into clear information structures<ref name="opasnet_lelieveld">See Opasnet (http://en.opasnet.org) for a collection of cases; especially Comment paper on Lelieveld et al criticism. http://heande.opasnet.org/heande/Talk:Population_attributable_fraction.</ref>. |
| − | <ref name=" | ||
Also, Wikipedia has shown that large open knowledge bases using specific rules are feasible. | Also, Wikipedia has shown that large open knowledge bases using specific rules are feasible. | ||
The rules can be applied to many important policy questions as well, if value issues are treated as research questions about people's values. This approach offers a solution for science-policy interaction. | The rules can be applied to many important policy questions as well, if value issues are treated as research questions about people's values. This approach offers a solution for science-policy interaction. | ||
| − | The worst decisions are made based on ignorance of scientific knowledge and/or people's opinions. Researchers and citizens could analyse and identify them on such a website. The rules would maintain its quality and distinguish it from other social media | + | The worst decisions are made based on ignorance of scientific knowledge and/or people's opinions. Researchers and citizens could analyse and identify them on such a website, giving valuable policy guidance. The rules would maintain its quality and distinguish it from other social media. |
| − | The current systems | + | The current publishing and meriting systems don't acknowledge such work, and it takes years to change this culture. But the critical question is this: are there enough forerunners who would contribute anyway, because of its impact rather than personal merit? |
: Jouni Tuomisto | : Jouni Tuomisto | ||
| Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| − | + | 309 words | |
| + | |||
| + | '''Related material | ||
Bellingcat group has shown that even heated policy issues can be resolved in this way. | Bellingcat group has shown that even heated policy issues can be resolved in this way. | ||
Revision as of 07:57, 16 March 2016
- Possible article formats in Nature: Correspondence (max 300 words), possibly extended to Comment or even Hypothesis. [3]
- Avoin yhteiskunta
Open science promotes open society
Researchers are rapidly learning to use big data, and online tools enable collaboration in self-organised groups. It is time to revisit how science could be done in a better way.
Ideally, science is open collaboration among people who share their data[1], develop research questions, and formulate hypotheses as answers. Then they falsify hypotheses using all available data - not e.g. prestige of speakers. Whatever holds against criticism is treated as the current best description about the reality.
It seems that we already can make this ideal come true.
Assume a website where scientific rules are strictly applied: An issue is formulated as question and is given a permanent page for contributions. All contributions are welcome, but work aims at answering the question, and relevance is always required. Answers' coherence to data and related questions is continually checked and corrected, unlike now[2]. Falsified hypotheses are kept visible to avoid repetition of previous mistakes.
We have successfully and efficiently tested this in several cases, some with intensive discussions requiring moderation into clear information structures[3]. Also, Wikipedia has shown that large open knowledge bases using specific rules are feasible.
The rules can be applied to many important policy questions as well, if value issues are treated as research questions about people's values. This approach offers a solution for science-policy interaction.
The worst decisions are made based on ignorance of scientific knowledge and/or people's opinions. Researchers and citizens could analyse and identify them on such a website, giving valuable policy guidance. The rules would maintain its quality and distinguish it from other social media.
The current publishing and meriting systems don't acknowledge such work, and it takes years to change this culture. But the critical question is this: are there enough forerunners who would contribute anyway, because of its impact rather than personal merit?
- Jouni Tuomisto
- chief researcher
- National Institute for Health and Welfare
References
- ↑ van Assen MALM, van Aert RCM, Nuijten MB, Wicherts JM. Why Publishing Everything Is More Effective than Selective Publishing of Statistically Significant Results. PLOS One 2014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0084896 [1]
- ↑ Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature 530, 27–29 (04 February 2016) doi:10.1038/530027a
- ↑ See Opasnet (http://en.opasnet.org) for a collection of cases; especially Comment paper on Lelieveld et al criticism. http://heande.opasnet.org/heande/Talk:Population_attributable_fraction.
309 words
Related material
Bellingcat group has shown that even heated policy issues can be resolved in this way. [1]
Nettityökalut mahdollistavat suoran demokratian.
Tieteessä on mahdollista keskittyä tieteen menetelmän perusteisiin ja hylätä toissijaisia käytäntöjä.
Kaikki data kannattaa julkaista.
Bayes-lähestymistapa on mahdollista toteuttaa laajassa mittakaavassa, jolloin alkaa kehittyä kaikenkattava malli.
Jokaisen kelvollisen hypoteesin pitää olla yhteensopiva kaiken havaintoaineiston kanssa.
Hypoteesien avaaminen kaikkien ehdotettavaksi tehostaa tutkimusta.
Data kyllä karsii mahdottomuudet. -> ei tarvita tutkijan auktoriteettia pönkittämään tutkimustietoa.
On mahdollista rakentaa nettisivu jossa noudatetaan tieteen sääntöjä. Tutkijan ei tarvitse mennä somen ehdoilla.
Se voi käsitellä myös yhteiskunnallisia asioita kuten tulevien päätösten arvioituja vaikutuksia. Vaikka tiede ei pysty kertomaan mitä tapahtuu, se kuitenkin pystyy kertomaan mitä päätösten avulla ei voi saada aikaan.
Koska suurimmat vahingot yhteiskunnalle syntyvät nimeomaan typerimmistä päätöksistä, niitä pystytään näin tehokkaasti välttämään.
Bellingcat onnistui selvittämään avoimen datan perusteella miten ammuttiin malesialaiskone Ukrainassa. Vaikka ei saatu tietää ihmisiä, selvitettiin kuitenkin osapuoli. Se on olennaista, koska samalla iso osa julkista keskustelua voitiin osoittaa virheelliseksi ellei peräti valheeksi.
Miten maailmasta tulisi parempi paikka jos tieteen menetelmän avulla ammuttaisiin alas politiikan väärät tiedot?
Tätä jo tehdään truthometer etc mutta systemaattisessa mielessä ei olla kovin pitkällä.
Somessa meluaminen on tehotonta vaikka olisi oikeassakin.
Mutta wikipedia osoittaa että voi olla tasan yksi paikka johon tieto kerätään tietyllä menetelmällä kuten tieteen periaatteita noudattaen.
Kaikki myös tietävät mistä se löytyy.
Hyökkäys toisen dataa käyttäviä haaskalintuja vastaan. Mikä lehti?
Politiikkoja voi keksiä kuka tahansa kuten hypoteesejakin. Pitää murskata harha että se olisi vain poliitikon tai tutkijan oikeus.
Ensin he eivät piittaa sinusta. Sitten he nauravat sinulle sitten he hyökkäävät sinua vastaan. Silloin oletkin jo voittanut. Gandhi.
Nimenomaan hyökkääminen on keino vahvistaa oikeaan osunutta hypoteesia. Sitä pitäisi siis käyttää enemmän.
Metavitsi: tämän käsikirjoituksen hyväksyminen kertoo tieteellisen julkaisemisen korjaamisen mahdollisuudesta, koska väitteet ovat rohkeita. Tieteen menetelmähän sanoo, että tällaisia hypoteeseja tulisi julkaista ja niitä vastaan tulisi aktivisesti hyökätä, jotta niiden kestävyys selviäisi.
Voisi viitata Lelieveldin ja Evansin artikkeliin, koska sen kritiikissä käytettiin jäsennettyä keskustelua jota tämäkin artikkeli ehdottaaa. Viite myös Eemeren ja Grootendorst.
Julkean väitteen perusteluna voidaan sanoa, ettei se liene mahdoton koska jokaisen osatekijän on erikseen jo osoitettu toimivan. Kyse on siis vain siitä, että ne pistetään tekemään yhteisttötä.
