Read on Twitter
Interesting blog post to me in terms of being very squarely centered on my interests - relating ideas about truth to support for pre-publication peer review - and containing stuff I agree and disagree with quite strongly. Read it for yourself here. Thread! https://hpsns.hypotheses.org/1122
...Central claims: peer review lets through morally bad work (tempting to qualify "in part" but not obvious this qualification is intended and I don't want to put words in author's mouth) because peer reviewers are too homogenous and have faulty notions of Truth as their guide...
... so the solution is to have a more diverse set of reviewers in terms of demographic background, and (rejecting as faulty the notion of objective capital-T truth) have people work more consciously towards securing the common good in science, and have that guide peer review...
(I'll set aside claim that searching for capital-T truth is somehow positivistic in a bad way. They'd evidently reject such notions as metaphysics and from early on they even explicitly acknowledged some sociological determinants of truth, see e.g. pg. 52 https://sci-hub.tw/10.1093/analys/2.4.49)
...I think point I agree with quite strongly is: pre-publication peer review is unduly homogenising, empowers a few people, this is at least in part because of sociological (including educational history) homogeneity of peer reviewers, we should try to diversify perspectives...
... we only touch on it briefly, but this is one of the things we had in mind in \\S3.6 here... https://academic.oup.com/bjps/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjps/axz029/5526887
... point I'm rather mixed on is whether scientists should aim for the social good. For boringly normal consequentialist reasons (I'm a Mohist!) I agree that ultimately we should arrange our social institutions such that they serve the common weal, and that includes science...
... But despite that agreement I think it rather too quick to go from that to conclusion that therefore scientists ought consciously try to advance justice when reviewing. I think Du Bois' argument here has something to it, and needs to be considered... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-017-1333-z
...and points I'm in severe disagreement about regard the role of objective capital-T-truth. I'm not sure I believe in such a thing, but I am very sceptical that a belief in it plays the social role ascribed to it here. I don't think most scientists actually are truth seekers!...
... my sense is historical and sociological studies of science find scientists working for fame and recognition, to change the world in certain ways or uphold a status quo, along with simple curiosity and even just enjoyment of a pleasant indoor job with no heavy lifting...
... for a fascinating study that illustrates it that I was recently reading, people can check out. My point just being that in light of this it does not seem to me plausible that metaphysical theories about truth sway reviewing decisions that much...
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703533
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703533
... I mean also for what it's worth I also don't think you should just keep rereading Robin DiAngelo until you agree with the claims therein, lol, but I think the author might have been a bit tongue in cheek there so this doesn't really count...
... so yeah reading this was a fascinating experience to me; seeing someone who in many ways seems very close to my own view yet I also feel we would probably disagree on quite a lot in practice. As ever, gratitude to the author for taking the time to write interesting things up!
