社会实验是否被夸大了?

Malte Neuwinger
{"title":"社会实验是否被夸大了?","authors":"Malte Neuwinger","doi":"10.14512/tatup.32.3.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social experiments, also known as randomized controlled trials, are the subject of contentious discussions, giving rise to buzzwords such as ‘credibility revolution,’ ‘experimenting society,’ ‘global lab,’ or ‘empire of truth.’ While using exaggeration to illustrate opportunities and risks may well be justified, this research article analyzes to what extent the present debate is characterized by excessive hype. It finds that the transformative potential of social experiments is greatly overestimated, a judgment that applies to the reasoning of both proponents and critics.","PeriodicalId":504838,"journal":{"name":"TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are social experiments being hyped (too much)?\",\"authors\":\"Malte Neuwinger\",\"doi\":\"10.14512/tatup.32.3.22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social experiments, also known as randomized controlled trials, are the subject of contentious discussions, giving rise to buzzwords such as ‘credibility revolution,’ ‘experimenting society,’ ‘global lab,’ or ‘empire of truth.’ While using exaggeration to illustrate opportunities and risks may well be justified, this research article analyzes to what extent the present debate is characterized by excessive hype. It finds that the transformative potential of social experiments is greatly overestimated, a judgment that applies to the reasoning of both proponents and critics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":504838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.32.3.22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.32.3.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

社会实验,又称随机对照试验,是有争议的讨论主题,引发了诸如 "公信力革命"、"实验社会"、"全球实验室 "或 "真理帝国 "等流行语。虽然用夸张的手法来说明机遇和风险可能是合理的,但这篇研究文章分析了目前的辩论在多大程度上存在过度炒作的问题。文章发现,社会实验的变革潜力被大大高估了,这一判断适用于支持者和批评者的推理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are social experiments being hyped (too much)?
Social experiments, also known as randomized controlled trials, are the subject of contentious discussions, giving rise to buzzwords such as ‘credibility revolution,’ ‘experimenting society,’ ‘global lab,’ or ‘empire of truth.’ While using exaggeration to illustrate opportunities and risks may well be justified, this research article analyzes to what extent the present debate is characterized by excessive hype. It finds that the transformative potential of social experiments is greatly overestimated, a judgment that applies to the reasoning of both proponents and critics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信