Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 455–469 | Cite as

Evaluating Scientific Research Projects: The Units of Science in the Making

  • Mario BungeEmail author
Article

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.

Keywords

Research project Problem Scientificity Evaluation 

References

  1. Barber, B. (1952). Science and the social order. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  2. Bunge, M. (1955). The philosophy of the space-time approach to the quantum theory. Methodos, 7, 295–308.Google Scholar
  3. Bunge, M. (1967a). Foundations of physics. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bunge, M. (1967b). Scientific research, 2 vols. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunge, M. (1973a). Philosophy of physics. Dordrecht, NL: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunge, M. (1973b). Method, model and matter. Dordrecht, NL: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunge, M. (1999). The sociology-philosophy connection. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  8. Bunge, M. (2003). Philosophical dictionary. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bunge, M. (2006). Chasing reality: The Strife over realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bunge, M. (2012). The correspondence theory of truth. Semiotica, 188, 65–76.Google Scholar
  11. Duhem, P. (1908). ΣΩΖΕIΝ ΤΑ ΦΑΙΝΟΜΕΝΑ: Essai sur la théorie physique de Platon à Galilée. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, G., & Silk, J. (2014). Defend the integrity of physics. Nature, 516, 321–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hebb, D. (1951). The role of neurological ideas in psychology. Journal of Personality, 20, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koepsell, D. (2009). Who owns you? Malden, MA: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Latour, Bruno. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Merton, R. K. (1973). Sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mirowski, P. (2011). Science-mart: Privatizing American science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raynaud, D. (2015). Scientific controversies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
  20. Romero, G. E., & Vila G. S. (2013). Introduction to black hole astrophysics. In Lecture Notes in Physics (Vol. 876).Google Scholar
  21. Sokal, A., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable nonsense. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
  22. Takahashi, D. Y., et al. (2015). The developmental dynamics of marmoset monkey vocal production. Science, 349, 734–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilsdon, J. (2015). We need a measured approach to metrics. Nature, 523, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinker, S. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  25. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations