设计中的谦逊可能是科学中的傲慢:对懒散科学问题的反思

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Michael Lissack , Brenden Meagher
{"title":"设计中的谦逊可能是科学中的傲慢:对懒散科学问题的反思","authors":"Michael Lissack ,&nbsp;Brenden Meagher","doi":"10.1016/j.sheji.2021.10.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Purpose, essence, and simplicity can provide a foundation for humility in the practice of human-centered design. While those qualities may assist in preparing narratives about the findings and applications of science, they also can be used to justify sloppy practices in the conduct of science itself. Slodderwetenschap (Dutch for “sloppy science”) is a form of carelessness characterized by the willingness to tolerate scientific shortcuts and the failure to question the assumptions that tolerance enables. Good science seldom comes from taking shortcuts or relying on “truthies”—assertions that feel true, regardless of their validity. Instead, good science demands that we continually ask what affords meaning to a given factoid, label, category, or narrative. Then, it requires that we base further inquiry on the assumptions, contexts, and constraints this inquiry reveals. This article opens a discussion into the dangers and practices of sloppy science.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37146,"journal":{"name":"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation","volume":"7 4","pages":"Pages 516-539"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872621001064/pdfft?md5=da867e620caf83ca8d6b2e528db72c7f&pid=1-s2.0-S2405872621001064-main.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Humility in Design May Be Hubris in Science: Reflections on the Problem of Slodderwetenschap (Sloppy Science)\",\"authors\":\"Michael Lissack ,&nbsp;Brenden Meagher\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sheji.2021.10.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Purpose, essence, and simplicity can provide a foundation for humility in the practice of human-centered design. While those qualities may assist in preparing narratives about the findings and applications of science, they also can be used to justify sloppy practices in the conduct of science itself. Slodderwetenschap (Dutch for “sloppy science”) is a form of carelessness characterized by the willingness to tolerate scientific shortcuts and the failure to question the assumptions that tolerance enables. Good science seldom comes from taking shortcuts or relying on “truthies”—assertions that feel true, regardless of their validity. Instead, good science demands that we continually ask what affords meaning to a given factoid, label, category, or narrative. Then, it requires that we base further inquiry on the assumptions, contexts, and constraints this inquiry reveals. This article opens a discussion into the dangers and practices of sloppy science.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 516-539\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872621001064/pdfft?md5=da867e620caf83ca8d6b2e528db72c7f&pid=1-s2.0-S2405872621001064-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872621001064\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"She Ji-The Journal of Design Economics and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872621001064","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的、本质和简单可以为以人为本的设计实践提供谦逊的基础。虽然这些品质可能有助于准备关于科学发现和应用的叙述,但它们也可能被用来为科学行为本身的草率行为辩护。Slodderwetenschap(荷兰语为“草率的科学”)是一种粗心大意的形式,其特点是愿意容忍科学上的捷径,而不质疑宽容所带来的假设。好的科学很少来自于走捷径或依赖于“真理”——不管其有效性如何,感觉是正确的断言。相反,好的科学要求我们不断追问,是什么赋予了给定的事实、标签、类别或叙述以意义。然后,它要求我们基于进一步的调查的假设,背景和约束,这一调查揭示。这篇文章开始讨论马虎科学的危险和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Humility in Design May Be Hubris in Science: Reflections on the Problem of Slodderwetenschap (Sloppy Science)

Purpose, essence, and simplicity can provide a foundation for humility in the practice of human-centered design. While those qualities may assist in preparing narratives about the findings and applications of science, they also can be used to justify sloppy practices in the conduct of science itself. Slodderwetenschap (Dutch for “sloppy science”) is a form of carelessness characterized by the willingness to tolerate scientific shortcuts and the failure to question the assumptions that tolerance enables. Good science seldom comes from taking shortcuts or relying on “truthies”—assertions that feel true, regardless of their validity. Instead, good science demands that we continually ask what affords meaning to a given factoid, label, category, or narrative. Then, it requires that we base further inquiry on the assumptions, contexts, and constraints this inquiry reveals. This article opens a discussion into the dangers and practices of sloppy science.

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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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