Novelty versus Replicability: Virtues and Vices in the Reward System of Science
Philosophy of Science2017Vol. 84(5), pp. 1031–1043
Citations Over TimeTop 1% of 2017 papers
Abstract
The reward system of science is the priority rule. The first scientist making a new discovery is rewarded with prestige, while second runners get little or nothing. Michael Strevens, following Philip Kitcher, defends this reward system, arguing that it incentivizes an efficient division of cognitive labor. I argue that this assessment depends on strong implicit assumptions about the replicability of findings. I question these assumptions on the basis of metascientific evidence and argue that the priority rule systematically discourages replication. My analysis leads us to qualify Kitcher and Strevens’s contention that a priority-based reward system is normatively desirable for science.
Related Papers
- Something from Nothing(2015)
- → Tom Jones: Fielding’s Novel on Nothing for Everyone(1987)
- Problem of Why there is Something Instead of Nothing © Copyright 2018 by Colin James III All Rights Reserved.(2018)
- → “Nothing’s new, and nothing’s true, and nothing matters.”(1887)
- → Nothings in particular(2020)