Talk:Thinking Scientifically
Course Feedback[edit source]
Please provide course feedback here.--Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 17:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Journal of Homeopathy peer review[edit source]
I was surprised to learn that the articles in the Journal of Homeopathy undergo peer review See: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/homeopathy. How can pseudoscience persist in the face of peer review? Can peer review become incestuous? Note the low cite score. --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
the Mertonian Norms[edit source]
Examine the Mertonian Norms of universalism, communalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms Can this improve the course? --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Bayesian view of scientific virtues[edit source]
This article on the Bayesian view of scientific virtues provides a valuable quantitative analysis of the basis for thinking scientifically. See: https://arbital.com/p/bayes_science_virtues/ Consider integrating these insights to improve the existing article. --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
A 21st-century enlightenment article and "Understanding Evolves"[edit source]
The substack article "A 21st-century enlightenment" provides good examples of how understanding evolves. Perhaps these ideas can be integrated into the course. --Lbeaumont (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)