Of course we can standardise science without much creative loss. We just have to be aware of the potential loss and give space to non-standardised methods. This is similar to how obviously we can standardise education or at least testing without much creative loss. In both cases people, usually teachers, bemoan some kind of loss of freedom or creativity. I posit that in both cases similar incentives stop standardisation being implemented.
More generally, we need a better picture of our social institutions to analyse this kind of situation. What do we want to encourage in science and education? If we can’t answer this question clearly we can’t give a clear answer to how we should design the specific institutions, among them standardisation.
Of course we can standardise science without much creative loss. We just have to be aware of the potential loss and give space to non-standardised methods.
How do you know this? How good are people at deliberately leaving room for non-standardized methods?
Good points. I think it’s easier to standardize education though, since you encounter more similar problems there all the time. Teaching nine-year olds arithmetic is a pretty similar problem regardless of what class you have (at least given a certain cultural setting) whereas scientific problems are more variable.
However, I also think that in both cases, people bemoan the loss of freedom/creativity too much. Sure, following standard practices is often more boring and less glamourous, but it’s also often more efficient. When industries using standardized techniques replaced artisans, people bemoaned that too, even though it enhanced productivity vastly.
I also agree we need a good picture of our social institutions (i.e. science in this case) to answer the question how we should approach standardization.
When industries using standardized techniques replaced artisans, people bemoaned that too, even though it enhanced productivity vastly.
Interestingly, first I wanted to argue that standardisation benefited industry in their workings. It was then that I realised we don’t actually know what science is exactly working for, so we can’t define a ‘scientific supply chain’ and decide where we’d want to formalise procedures. So I dropped that line of argumentation and submitted the above post.
Of course we can standardise science without much creative loss. We just have to be aware of the potential loss and give space to non-standardised methods. This is similar to how obviously we can standardise education or at least testing without much creative loss. In both cases people, usually teachers, bemoan some kind of loss of freedom or creativity. I posit that in both cases similar incentives stop standardisation being implemented.
More generally, we need a better picture of our social institutions to analyse this kind of situation. What do we want to encourage in science and education? If we can’t answer this question clearly we can’t give a clear answer to how we should design the specific institutions, among them standardisation.
How do you know this? How good are people at deliberately leaving room for non-standardized methods?
Good points. I think it’s easier to standardize education though, since you encounter more similar problems there all the time. Teaching nine-year olds arithmetic is a pretty similar problem regardless of what class you have (at least given a certain cultural setting) whereas scientific problems are more variable.
However, I also think that in both cases, people bemoan the loss of freedom/creativity too much. Sure, following standard practices is often more boring and less glamourous, but it’s also often more efficient. When industries using standardized techniques replaced artisans, people bemoaned that too, even though it enhanced productivity vastly.
I also agree we need a good picture of our social institutions (i.e. science in this case) to answer the question how we should approach standardization.
Interestingly, first I wanted to argue that standardisation benefited industry in their workings. It was then that I realised we don’t actually know what science is exactly working for, so we can’t define a ‘scientific supply chain’ and decide where we’d want to formalise procedures. So I dropped that line of argumentation and submitted the above post.