Ronin Public Seminar: Against Method

Oh Ye Good Folks I am giving a talk on Against Method and how it fits with Research Registration, among other things. Jitsi link to be distributed here and on Ronin twitter handle just before the event. I am sorry this is very early morning in some areas of the US


Just a note on logistics, this will be at 0800 EST / 14 CET on Monday, Dec 20th.

Summary: Against Method (Lakatos, Feyerabend et al) is identified as an important current in scientific thinking which addresses at least in part some of the concerns surrounding the limitations of what is generally defined as the scientific method.This seminar provides an overview of this movement (its history, main proponents, main ideas) and places in the context of contemporary scientific thinking, by relating it to Open Science and Metascience.The role of Against method is also discussed in relation to Independent Research and Scholarship (building on my previous proposal for a seminar, before the summit). A course, textbook and teaching resources are presented and made available to Ronin Institute.

Calender link: invite.ics (2.5 KB)

Looking forward to it :smiley:

Very interesting! When and where will the Jitsi link be shared?

Apparently it will be on meet (From Ronin’s public calendar)


Here are some relevant links:

a) a form where interested people can enter their email for updates and comments

b) a hangout link to join the meeting:

c) a youtube livestream: Ronin Seminar 20 Dec 2021, : AGAINST METHOD by Paola Di Maio Livestream - YouTube

Thank you Gavin and apologies to those who tried to join but could not, we faced multiple technical issues, will try to produce a better final version for the archive in the meantime here is the pre recorded overview

I liked this summary slide from your talk:

And your definition of epistemic inclusivity:

Inclusivity should apply not only to the conference set-up but also to its content. This idea—termed epistemic inclusivity—calls for the inclusion of multiple lines of enquiries, broad perspectives, contradictory views, and even different scientific paradigms, such that a multiplicity of theories and hypotheses can be formulated and discussed instead of only the dominant ones.

I look forward to future discussions on this topic :slight_smile:

This article reminded me of @paoladm call for epistemic inclusivity:

Biology must generate ideas as well as data

Seeking to be led by theory and knowledge will probably require shifts in research culture. Theorizing should be encouraged, and theories should be included in experimental papers to put data in context. Attempts to do this should not be dismissed by editorial and funding processes as idle speculation. As Darwin said, it allows ideas to be attacked and either dismissed or modified. A sort of ‘tyranny of the field’ sometimes inhibits the generation of explanations different from the current consensus, but this is a mistake. If the new ideas are not satisfactory, then they will soon be eliminated and progress will be made.

False facts should not be tolerated, but journals and research funders should be open to reasonable new ideas and interpretations, particularly if they differ from the current consensus. Evaluation committees should be tolerant when some of the ideas of people they are considering for promotion or funding are shown to be incorrect.

@btrettel, the article also generally reminds me of your comment on the death of theory in the physical sciences.

1 Like