REVIEW 1 cited by
The Paradox of Collective Certainty in Science
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
The Paradox of Collective Certainty in Science
read the original 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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Shared Discovery Paradox: How a One-Answer Rule Turns Better Information into Worse Search
A one-answer rule turns better pooled information into worse group discovery, and self-interested search only partially fixes it.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.