“What is the core, immutable quality of science? It's not formal publication, it's not peer review, it's not properly citing sources. It's not "the scientific method" (whatever that means). It's not replicability. It's not even Popperian falsificationism – the approach that admits we never exactly prove things, but only establish them as very likely by repeated failed attempts to disprove them. Underlying all those things is something more fundamental. Humility.”
“The fundamental strength of science is that it compels its practitioners to confront their own fallibility.”
- Mike Taylor, Science is enforced humility. November 13, 2012
Having a healthy appreciation of one's own fallibility leads to better science writing. For example, research papers imbued with the spirit of scientific humility will include substantial discussion of critical assumptions, contrary findings, and alternative interpretations of the data. Their conclusions are cautious and tentative. They give serious consideration to the limitations of their research and suggest further research that would address these limitations.
If only it were that simple. I’ve read a lot of research papers where the authors obey the letter but ignore the spirit of scientific humility. Their discussions of assumptions, alternative interpretations, and limitations are perfunctory. They oversimplify and distort alternative explanations and perspectives, creating sham arguments against the case they are making. They then overstate their conclusions and the significance of their research.
Next: an example of a research paper lacking in humility.
-
Recommended:
Evaluating Research Quality: Guidelines for Scholarship 22 February 2012; By Todd Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute