Polarization in research or mere dissent - a need for better demarcation.

IF 4 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-10-03 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2025.2530085

Bor Luen Tang

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dr Bjørn Hofmann's views on polarization in research are insightful. However, many if not most types of differences in scientific opinions might thus be included as polarization. It could be argued that true polarization in scientific research should include only individuals and groups approximating the Lakatosian "research program" type, whereby polarized research parties could tangibly defend their own core theses, which have yet to be falsified, with heuristic pursuits. Otherwise, such differences are better classified as dissents, although the latter, beyond being merely annoying, could also be disruptive for research.

查看原文本刊更多论文

研究的两极分化或者仅仅是异议——需要更好的划分。

Hofmann博士关于研究两极分化的观点很有见地。然而，许多（如果不是大多数）类型的科学观点差异可能因此被包括为两极分化。可以说，科学研究中真正的两极分化应该只包括接近拉卡托斯“研究计划”类型的个人和团体，两极分化的研究各方可以用启发式的追求切实捍卫自己的核心论文，这些论文尚未被证伪。否则，这些差异最好被归类为不同意见，尽管后者除了令人讨厌之外，还可能对研究造成干扰。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.