Abstract
Original research is of course what scientists are expected to do. Therefore the research project is in many ways the unit of science in the making: it is the center of the professional life of the individual scientist and his coworkers. It is also the means towards the culmination of their specific activities: the original publication they hope to contribute to the scientific literature. The scientific project should therefore be of central interest to all the students of science, particularly the philosophers and sociologists of science. We shall focus on the preliminary evaluation of research projects—the specific task of referees—and will emphasize the problem of their scientificity—the chief concern of scientific gatekeepers. In the past such an examination aimed only at protecting the taxpayer from swindlers and incompetent amateurs, such as the inventors of continuous motion artifacts. In recent times a similar issue has resurfaced with regard to some of the most prestigious and most handsomely funded projects, namely work on string theory and many-worlds cosmology. Indeed, some of their faithful have claimed that these theories are so elegant, and so full of high-grade mathematics, that they should be exempted from empirical tests. This claim provoked the spirited rebuttal of the well-known cosmologists Ellis and Silk (Nature 516:321–323, 2014), which the present paper is intended to reinforce. Indeed, we shall try to show why empirical testability is necessary though insufficient for a piece of work to qualify as scientific. Finally, the present paper may also be regarded as an indirect contribution to the current debate over the reliability of quantitative indicators of scientific worth, such as the h-index of scientific productivity (e.g., Wilsdon in Nature 523:129, 2015). But we shall touch only tangentially on the sociological, political, and economics of research teams: our focus will be the acquisition of new scientific knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barber, B. (1952). Science and the social order. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Bunge, M. (1955). The philosophy of the space-time approach to the quantum theory. Methodos, 7, 295–308.
Bunge, M. (1967a). Foundations of physics. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Bunge, M. (1967b). Scientific research, 2 vols. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
Bunge, M. (1973a). Philosophy of physics. Dordrecht, NL: Reidel.
Bunge, M. (1973b). Method, model and matter. Dordrecht, NL: Reidel.
Bunge, M. (1999). The sociology-philosophy connection. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Bunge, M. (2003). Philosophical dictionary. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Bunge, M. (2006). Chasing reality: The Strife over realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Bunge, M. (2012). The correspondence theory of truth. Semiotica, 188, 65–76.
Duhem, P. (1908). ΣΩΖΕIΝ ΤΑ ΦΑΙΝΟΜΕΝΑ: Essai sur la théorie physique de Platon à Galilée. Paris: Hermann.
Ellis, G., & Silk, J. (2014). Defend the integrity of physics. Nature, 516, 321–323.
Hebb, D. (1951). The role of neurological ideas in psychology. Journal of Personality, 20, 39–55.
Koepsell, D. (2009). Who owns you? Malden, MA: Wiley.
Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1973). Sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Raynaud, D. (2015). Scientific controversies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Romero, G. E., & Vila G. S. (2013). Introduction to black hole astrophysics. In Lecture Notes in Physics (Vol. 876).
Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense. New York: Picador.
Takahashi, D. Y., et al. (2015). The developmental dynamics of marmoset monkey vocal production. Science, 349, 734–738.
Wilsdon, J. (2015). We need a measured approach to metrics. Nature, 523, 129.
Pinker, S. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bunge, M. Evaluating Scientific Research Projects: The Units of Science in the Making. Found Sci 22, 455–469 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9474-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9474-3