The mathematics of science’s broken reward system
The challenge will be to fix this whilst keeping the precise, mechanical and quantitative spirit of science alive.<p>The reason why scientists have a natural "disdain" for sociological studies, is because they don't have these qualities. Many of the arguments aren't convincing from a critical angle, and only convincing to people who have a pre-existing bias towards certain conclusions. Yet the scientific culture of today is falling into that trap itself.<p>The article criticises metric-driven incentives, but it is not metrics (the general concept) that are at fault. It is the <i>choice</i> of metric, and the meta-analysis of this that is lacking. These choices are themselves often backed up by non-scientific vague arguments, of the similar sort that scientists often criticise other fields as depending upon.<p>We must certainly not conclude from these studies that quantitative analysis is <i>itself</i> what is at fault. I know the article doesn't explicitly say this, but it hints at it - using suggestive phrasing like "disdained sociological studies" and referring to all "metric incentives" as a single group - and it is a point I have seen made by many non-scientists. That is, using these flaws as a straw man to attack the very qualities of what has made science so successful and useful.<p>To improve the situation, we must reject these straw-man arguments against science, and develop better methods that are more quantitive, over a broader spectrum of what is being analysed, and that are more self-critical.