opinion | Support intellectual humility. Written by Kristen Suling (@KSuleng) #OpinionVP

Because of a historical error in understanding, which was published scientifically squirting con Nor does it find a solution, science is often credited with being able to create certainty, when the people who practice the results are, in fact, right or wrong. In fact, what he wrote in 1987 did not lose its validity. Giovanni Sartori in that democracy theory: “The Governments They are made of people and not of things. Hence a little doubt about who would be the king: if there was a scientific government, would it be a government of scientists? With all that the pandemic has brought us, the pandemic also does not allow for consensus in the response.

Science is also adorned with relentless and unbreakable assumptions when it’s on the good side of history, or when equations prove that societies are true and not the other way around, or when they tell Regional Secretary for EducationAnd Miguel Soler. External perception is far from the core of knowledge, an area that is assimilated into a daily routine, with better or worse finance, uncertainty, temporary and paradox. The research, in its primitive and intimate version of an accumulation of trials and errors, was not conducted for cynicism or feeble vanity. However, its institutional development, which led to publications, metrics, and accreditations, is increasingly close to the innocence of the 1980s and the New York stockbroker burnout narrated by Tom WolfNo matter how white the robes remain.

Said the author best known for the versatility of this color that unites science workers, creating a clasp-type uniformity worthy of, in addition, strategy To awaken scientific calls among school children. But, no matter how much interest the flag raises, what matters in a dress is what’s underneath.

Scientists on the couch

While there is a discussion style Endogamy, a timeless academic direction as the embodiment of objectivity in information and communication sciences, in other places, cooks nostalgia for the lost humility of science in two directions: both in their precise view of the world in itself and in their attitude in relation to others.

From the latest thoughts on the need to return to humble mind that Leaves They stripped the investigation (defenders of ‘unquestionable answers’ being scanned across social networks, left to another chapter) belonging to that journal publication. The nature of human behavior by psychologists Rink Hoekstra, from the University of Groningen (Netherlands), and Simin Vasirfrom the University of Melbourne (Australia). Just like no one wants to go back to the photo album without filters, Few think about the transparency-inspired post and the raw “tell it like it is”, because the whirlwind of the posting process ends up working like Instagram, overcome by how amazing the results are.. The cult of beauty is free from errors and nuances, leads to arrogance, to a science that ignores mistakes, and tacitly leads to boasting of results.

The Directors General take note. If they suspect that the style guide for eligible projects has been exhausted after transparency, innovation, diversity or sustainability, Comes intellectual humility, the solution that psychologists propose for the welfare of scientists all over the world: one must publicly acknowledge the condition of human beings, “They can be wrong, put up with their limits, put them first, take them seriously and accept their consequences.”

Despite the whiff of self-help, the bottom of the letter contains crumbs, apart from the fact that contributions from psychology are welcome in one field, the field of looking at the navel (meta-analysis of science or self-study science), except for law or sociology Approximately. These authors describe a humble mindset that encourages people to learn (without the utilitarian frills), with the ability to reduce political polarization and motivating the ability to question fake news.It also encourages proactive science (more honest and repeatable research), and restores self-esteem in the social sciences. This last point is not an exaggeration. in 2016 Project Loss of Trust, which asked researchers to submit papers they no longer believe in, along with a detailed explanation of their change in attitude, the results of which can be read in the study. Put the self into the autocorrect, note that “science can advance at a faster rate than a funeral.”

Limitations, the backbone of a scholarly article

Crescent moon Accreditation Scientific careers in research article publishing systems lead to the misuse of all kinds of filtering: exaggerating the novelty of a study, playing with statistics to mask uncertainty in the data, overlooking failed experiments or suggesting that theoretical results are closer to real-life application than they are in reality. It is the publishing process itself that generates and rewards this behavior. Although presented as an accepted scientific standard, If current research practice discourages intellectual humility, the carrot of change is in the drawer of editors and reviewers—review remains one of the few havens of academic freedom—and also in those who decide which project is worth funding..

The study suggests that intellectual humility Each component of a scientific paper can be permeated from start to finish, from the abstract, where the authors must acknowledge that the group of participants was limited and present all experiments in the study (not just those that provided the strongest results), for discussion, a final section should work on Duplicate potential errors in the research design and honestly assessing the scope of application of the results, where limitations were the backbone.

“We usually hide uncertainty under the rug in an effort to be seen as strong or wise,” these psychologists say. Arrogance makes you forget that strength is the acceptance that there is always uncertainty, a reflection Nothing new, but more interesting, at least, than starting to search ideological designations To the anti-vaccine and anti-GM currents, discuss whether the word “Doctor” should be written in front of the names of the Ph.D. Or imagine what would happen to the world if political parties or governments were incorporated only by scholars, forgetting in all cases to revisit the manuals of technocracy. I return to Sartori: “Governments based on reason are always the governments of scholars.” For a lot of intellectual humility, supported or not, the problem is the first.