"In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move."--important warning from about perversion of #openscience and #reproducibility arguments
There’s No Such Thing As ‘Sound Science’
Science is a process, not an answer. Uncertainty is an inherent part of the process, not a reason to dismiss it.
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
"Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history." Important piece from , one of the consistently best sci-journalists working today.
"Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt & undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests"
There’s No Such Thing As ‘Sound Science’
Another great piece from on scientific evidence, and the misunderstanding of uncertainty
There’s no such thing as "sound science."
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
Very important message from on open science versus the amplification of even very minor dissent and uncertainties for political/commercial purposes: “There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'”
Great article that points to an important distinction between reproducibility and science doubters. There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
There’s No Such Thing As ‘Sound Science’ - by : "Whereas the #OpenScience movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty" via
"..."agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know..." Evidence-based policy-making NOW.
“Sound science” sounds like a good thing. But the actual phrase is a weasel term meant to throw up obfuscatory political doubt in the face of scientific findings you don’t want to hear.
“Agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance.
“Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing ...“agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. ‘
The easiest way to undermine good science is to demand that it be made “sound.”
Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible.
"Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement." Excellent piece that also speaks to why focus should be on values underlying these controversies.
Food for thought: We should rethink how we talk about science. RT and let us know your thoughts!
From , a fantastic account of how the right weaponizes the language of "sound science" to degrade science.
Great piece summarizing how science is undermined, and why there’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
Impt piece by 538's inimitable Christie Aschwanden on the political weaponization of open science, quoting among others 2 faculty. Also, related 2016 article by Levy and Johns.
Awesome take from : on the dangers of weaponized reproducible research: - a topic I care about a lot.
Distinguishing good science from "sound science" - great stuff as always from
's latest is a clarion call: Science is being turned against itself. Crackerjack essay from one of our most incisive defenders of science.
Science is a process, not an answer, something those seeking to undermine it either don't understand or purposefully obsfucate
Scientific uncertainty is a feature, not a bug. But more than ever, "science’s virtues are being wielded against it." Essential read by in
"Science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction".
Chilling survey of tactics to seed doubt about science: There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
"The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty." #openscience #soundscience
There’s no such thing as ‘sound science’. This is an awesome discussion of how the demand for ‘sound science’ is a classic tactic used to undermine & dismiss good science
One of those must read pieces. How climate change deniers and others use the “baked-in uncertainty” of science to seed doubt in people. #scicomm
I'm not as much a fan of the precautionary principle as the author, but there's much to be learned here for those who wish to reform nutrition with "sound science": There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
There’s No Such Thing As ‘Sound Science’
The "merchants of doubt", using open science, research rigor and transparency principles to undermine, rather than strengthen, science - reminder, there will always be uncertainty, doesn't mean evidence can't be conclusive
"Most scientific controversies aren't about science at all."
Excellent read on why "There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science' " though it's a favorite ploy for peddlers of doubt.
Brilliant essay on "sound science" v "open science"
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science' some comments from
"Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all... more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement". Interesting piece, on how the standards of the scientific process can be twisted in the service of vested interests h/t
"Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement."
There’s No Such Thing As ‘Sound Science’ via
Thanks for discussing work by historians and STS researchers in this piece. (And maybe you can talk to some philosophers of science for your next piece?)
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
“We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.”
"Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement."
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science' >
The Easiest Way To Dismiss Good Science? Demand ‘Sound Science’ | FiveThirtyEight
Great article in on the role of science in society and how debates "about the science" are often not really about the science but about our values.
“Most controversies are about values, not scientific facts. Acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates.” And only humans can make value judgements.
Nice piece on why the GOP wants "sound science" Quotes two of my (great) Stanford colleagues, & Robt Proctor (a parent of "agnogenesis")
What do we make of the fact that Scott Pruitt and the open science movement both call for transparency and rigor? Compelling essay.
"Science does not produce absolute certainty... science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions."
The weaponizing of scientific "soundness" for political aims shows once again why she's one of the best science journalists in the business
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
There’s No Such Thing As 'Sound Science'
The partisan ploy behind the term "Sound Science.' We need "good science." #science #education
There’s No Such Thing As ‘Sound Science’: The easiest way to undermine good science is to demand that it be made “sound.”