Hello, friends!  Welcome to Sciency Words, a special series here on Planet Pailly where we talk about those weird and wonderful words scientists use.  Today on Sciency Words, we’re talking about:

METASCIENCE

Metascience is when science “gets meta” and studies itself, with the specific aim of making published scientific research more accurate and trustworthy.  That goal, that stated purpose, is an important part of the definition.  Or at least it should be, according to this YouTube video by Professor Fiona Fidler.

You see, metascience overlaps with certain other fields of research, like the philosophy of science or the sociology of science.  But a key part of a metascientist’s job is to identify problems with the current culture and methodology of scientific research and try to figure out ways to make science better.

The word metascience can be traced back to the 1930’s, with the earliest known usage attributed to American philosopher and semiotician Charles William Morris.  But as an actual field of research, metascience is not nearly that old.  This 2005 paper entitled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” is apparently a foundational document for modern metascience (or at least that’s what Wikipedia told me).

For a few months now, I’ve been doing lots of research about research, trying to improve the way I do my own research as a science fiction writer, and also trying to better understand what can go right (and wrong) with science.  With that in mind, I’m surprised I didn’t come across this term sooner.  Now that I do know about metascience, a whole new world of metascientific research has been revealed to me.

Reading about metascience has been kind of unsettling for me, actually.  Modern science has a lot more problems than I realized; however, there are people out there working to identify and fix those problems, so that science can live up to its promises.  And that, I think, is a very encouraging thing to know.

8 responses »

  1. Kate Rauner says:

    Nice find! And a sobering reminder to us all that “truth” is harder to come by than any single research paper.

    Liked by 3 people

    • J.S. Pailly says:

      Indeed! That’s one of the issues that 2005 paper pointed out: the scientific community puts too much emphasis on individual papers. But I feel like that’s something people are better about now, 16 years later.

      There are other things in that 2005 paper, though, that I feel have not changed much. That paper really is worth reading.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Steve Morris says:

    I wonder what the study of metascience is called?

    Liked by 5 people

  3. I have to admit, this is not a word I have come across. Thanks for introducing it to me!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. James, your subscription thing won’t let me join, despite my having a genuine email address. I have a lot of problems with WordPress, alas! I have to use my Twitter address to comment.

    Liked by 1 person

    • J.S. Pailly says:

      Sorry you’re still having trouble with that. I’ve been trying to figure out if some setting is wrong on my end, or if some plug-in got turned off by accident, but no luck.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.