The authors define trust-relevant stochasticity as variability at or above a user's valued level of description, and propose latent value modeling to assess user-system value alignment.
The Paradox of Collective Certainty in Science
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
We explore a paradox of collective action and certainty in science wherein the more scientists research together, the less that work contributes to the value of their collective certainty. When scientists address similar problems and share data, methods, and collaborators, their understanding of and trust in their colleagues' research rises, a quality required for scientific advance. This increases the positive reinforcement scientists receive for shared beliefs as they become more dependent on their colleagues' knowledge, interests, and findings. This collective action increases the potential for scientists to reside in epistemic ''bubbles'' that limit their capacity to make new discoveries or have their discoveries generalize. In short, as scientists grow closer, their experience of scientific validity rises as the likelihood of genuine replication falls, creating a trade-off between certainty and truth.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CY 1years
2025 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Trustworthiness in Stochastic Systems: Towards Opening the Black Box
The authors define trust-relevant stochasticity as variability at or above a user's valued level of description, and propose latent value modeling to assess user-system value alignment.