Esa Hämäläinen’s Post

In our latest blog post, we delve into the intriguing concept of whether science functions as a strong-link problem. This exploration examines the dynamics of scientific collaboration and the impact of key individuals on advancements in research. Understanding this relationship is vital for fostering innovation and maximizing the effectiveness of scientific endeavors. Join us as we analyze these critical elements and their implications for the future of science. Read the full post here: https://ift.tt/ujkyzNF

From our continuing series on the workings of science, with Sandro Galea

Working in a field where often rethorical eloquence and tradition or authority are guiding forces, I am glad to read this reminder: "The fundamental principle of science is that evidence — not authority, tradition, rhetorical eloquence, or social prestige — should triumph. This commitment makes science a radical force in society: challenging and disrupting sacred myths, cherished beliefs, and socially desirable narratives. Consequently, science exists in tension with other institutions, occasionally provoking hostility and censorship."

It’s exciting when scientific breakthroughs make headlines, but how do we ensure these discoveries are reliable and trustworthy? Building trust in science goes beyond just asking questions. It requires a commitment to transparency and reproducibility at every stage of the research process. This insightful article dives deep into the global dialogue on research integrity and the critical role of organized skepticism in science. Check out the full article here: https://ow.ly/VYGs50SfbQO #ResearchIntegrity #TrustInScience

How do you encourage unbiased scientific findings that preserve facts and prevent malicious actors? An important point here is that science must never be taken as God's 'absolute truth', AND must always be allowed to be openly criticised no matter how big the fundors behind the piece of research are and no matter how 'big' the institute or publisher it came from is! On top of that, MSM should NOT put pressure on preventing any open criticism of science inventions or findings, as few years ago events showed us. An open discussion MUST be allowed where everyone cites all of their sources so they can be freely criticised back and freely dispute all science findings. A final point, educating researchers and the wider public into critically evaluating with no biases all science findings is equally important when seeking to preserve the facts. So, at the end all the malicious actors with ulterior agendas could be revealed and exposed.

🌐 On #HumanRightsDay, we reflect on the Right to Participate in and Benefit from Science – a universal human right that has often been overlooked. The ISC emphasizes that this right is fundamental for all people to access, contribute to, and benefit from scientific knowledge. Participating in and benefitting from science is a universal human right, but the understanding and application of this right has been problematic. State obligations regarding the right to participate in and benefit from science have been neglected, while the implications for scientists – including the fundamental existence of this right – remain overlooked by the global scientific community. Learn more about the ISC's interpretation of the #RightToScience and share your feedback through our questionnaire: https://lnkd.in/eBHa6Dab #InclusiveScience #GlobalScience #HumanRights #ScientificFreedom

Science is often presented an as objective process - a 'hard' discipline, which pursues truth based only on evidence. In Statecraft, Harry Shakespeare-Davies shakes up the idea of 'value-free' science, arguing that scientific knowledge is in fact underdetermined by available evidence, and all wrapped up in social values. From power dynamics to historical influences, this article unpacks why science isn't as neutral as we think. It's all about embracing a more inclusive, diverse approach to scientific inquiry. So, let's mix some fun with our facts and get curious about the way science works!  Read it here: https://lnkd.in/esweNExw

Couldn't agree with this more. I've been discussing this very topic online this morning. The number of papers published in fundamental theoretical physics over the last 35 years has been truly astonishing. For example, there were 3,834 papers added to the hep-th category of arXiv alone in 2023. For all these papers, have we had any real breakthroughs over that period in the most important questions in the field? Difficult to say for sure - which is a massive contrast with the previous 35 years (from 1954 to 1989). These years saw huge advances in the understanding of the constituents of nucleons and cosmic ray particles, the gauge theories of the electroweak and strong forces, and in many other directions besides. If there is any appreciable advance from the millions of pounds, dollars, etc, poured into fundamental physics over the last 35 years, it pales into insignificance compared with that prior period. When our current understanding is already so advanced and complicated, something that can be churned out in the short timescales of a postdoc, for example, just isn't going to make much headway. It will usually take years to produce anything of real value. I've been sitting outside traditional academia for over 20 years, working almost entirely on my own and unfunded, focusing on what I think is important. I've uncovered many fallacies in existing theory. I've built on pre-1985 theory to make significant progress towards a unified field theory of gravity and the other fundamental interactions, in a way I haven't seen in the rest of physics research over this period, and I'm now starting to get it published. We're getting to the stage where people outside academia often have better ideas than those inside it.

💡 #News #RightToScience: The International Science Council (ISC) has just released a clear framework for understanding the "right to participate in and benefit from science," offering a detailed interpretation and guide to this fundamental right. The interpretation highlights key obligations to ensure universal access to science and scientific knowledge, while safeguarding scientific freedoms and promoting education. Aligned with the ISC’s Principles of Freedom and Responsibility in Science, it reinforces the vision of #science as a Global Public Good. The ISC’s interpretation aims to encourage wide discussion and to contribute to the continual development of the right to participate in and benefit from #science in ways that will benefit all people everywhere. ➡️ Discover the ISC's interpretation of the right to science and engage in the global conversation on making scientific knowledge universally accessible: https://lnkd.in/eBHa6Dab. #CFRS Vivi Stavrou Gustav Kessel Francoise Baylis S. Karly Kehoe #SciencePolicy #HumanRights #GlobalPublicGood #ScientificFreedom #EducationForAll #OpenScience #UniversalAccess #SustainableDevelopment #ScienceForSociety #GlobalScience

Science — and that includes both the natural and the social sciences — is supposed to be, a truth-seeking enterprise. The phenomena that one decides to study may be chosen for their conceptual significance, for their social or economic importance, or simply out of personal curiosity. But whatever topic a scientist decides to investigate, she is intellectually and morally obliged to follow the evidence wherever it leads: even (or especially) if that evidence conflicts with her preconceptions or her desires. Science doesn’t always work this way, of course — scientists are, after all, human — but that is anyway the ideal towards which we strive. And if there is freedom of debate within the scientific community — freedom to hold each others’ ideas to stringent conceptual and empirical scrutiny — then the scientific community collectively is more likely to reach objectively true conclusions than any of its members could do alone.