Brian Nosek

This is a real challenge that we wrestle with and have wrestled with since the origins of the center is how do we promote this culture of critique and self-criticism about our field and and simultaneously have that be understood as the strength of research rather than its weakness.

This is a real challenge that we wrestle with and have wrestled with since the origins of the center is how do we promote this culture of critique and self-criticism about our field and and simultaneously have that be understood as the strength of research rather than its weakness.

One of the phrases that I've liked to use in this is that the reason to trust science is because it doesn't trust itself. That part of what makes science great as a social system is its constant self-scrutiny and willingness to try to find and expose its errors So that the evidence that comes out at the end is the most robust, reliable, valid evidence as could be.

One of the phrases that I've liked to use in this is that the reason to trust science is because it doesn't trust itself. That part of what makes science great as a social system is its constant self-scrutiny and willingness to try to find and expose its errors So that the evidence that comes out at the end is the most robust, reliable, valid evidence as could be.

One of the phrases that I've liked to use in this is that the reason to trust science is because it doesn't trust itself. That part of what makes science great as a social system is its constant self-scrutiny and willingness to try to find and expose its errors So that the evidence that comes out at the end is the most robust, reliable, valid evidence as could be.

And that continuous process is the best process in the world that we've ever invented for knowledge production. We can do better. I think our mistake in some prior efforts of promoting science is to appeal to authority, saying you should trust science because scientists know what they're doing. I don't think that's the way to gain trust in science because anyone can make that claim.

And that continuous process is the best process in the world that we've ever invented for knowledge production. We can do better. I think our mistake in some prior efforts of promoting science is to appeal to authority, saying you should trust science because scientists know what they're doing. I don't think that's the way to gain trust in science because anyone can make that claim.

And that continuous process is the best process in the world that we've ever invented for knowledge production. We can do better. I think our mistake in some prior efforts of promoting science is to appeal to authority, saying you should trust science because scientists know what they're doing. I don't think that's the way to gain trust in science because anyone can make that claim.

Appeals to authority are very weak arguments. I think our opportunity as a field to address the skepticism of institutions generally and science specifically is is to show our work, is by being transparent, by allowing the criticism to occur, by in fact encouraging and promoting critical engagement with our evidence.

Appeals to authority are very weak arguments. I think our opportunity as a field to address the skepticism of institutions generally and science specifically is is to show our work, is by being transparent, by allowing the criticism to occur, by in fact encouraging and promoting critical engagement with our evidence.

Appeals to authority are very weak arguments. I think our opportunity as a field to address the skepticism of institutions generally and science specifically is is to show our work, is by being transparent, by allowing the criticism to occur, by in fact encouraging and promoting critical engagement with our evidence.

That is the playing field I'd much rather be on with people who are the so-called enemies of science than in competing appeals to authority. Because if they need to wrestle with the evidence and an observer says, wow, one group is totally avoiding the evidence and the other group is actually showing their work, I think people will know who to trust. That's easy to say. It's very hard to do.

That is the playing field I'd much rather be on with people who are the so-called enemies of science than in competing appeals to authority. Because if they need to wrestle with the evidence and an observer says, wow, one group is totally avoiding the evidence and the other group is actually showing their work, I think people will know who to trust. That's easy to say. It's very hard to do.

That is the playing field I'd much rather be on with people who are the so-called enemies of science than in competing appeals to authority. Because if they need to wrestle with the evidence and an observer says, wow, one group is totally avoiding the evidence and the other group is actually showing their work, I think people will know who to trust. That's easy to say. It's very hard to do.

These are hard problems.

These are hard problems.

These are hard problems.

We are a carrot-based organization because we don't have sticks. I mean, would you like me to loan you a stick just once in a while? Yeah, that would be fun.

We are a carrot-based organization because we don't have sticks. I mean, would you like me to loan you a stick just once in a while? Yeah, that would be fun.

We are a carrot-based organization because we don't have sticks. I mean, would you like me to loan you a stick just once in a while? Yeah, that would be fun.