Sure, but standardization has, by and large, been to the better, I would argue. If we hadn’t converged on e.g. a specific terminology on measuring various quantities, communication would have been much harder (and to the extent that we have not converged, for instance because Britons and Americans use alternatives to the metric system, this gives rise to lots of unnecessary complications.) But you’re right that it could lead to problems. ACS’ practice seems quite malign.
The point about it being hard to get different disciplines agree on one terminology because of different standards and norms is a good one. I agree with it, and I don’t think consensus is possible. The question is whether it is necessary. I’m thinking one could try to set up this system and let researchers join if they want (e.g. if they want to advertise their results through the system). Postmodernists and others who would not want to use the standardized terminology would not join, but if the system became sufficiently influential, this would presumably be to their disadvantage.
My idea is very much in line with the Unity of Science movement; an idea that I am unfashionably positive to. Science should not be compartmentalized—even though there should of course be a thorough division of labour science should be a heavily integrated enterprise.
I’m thinking one could try to set up this system and let researchers join if they want (e.g. if they want to advertise their results through the system). Postmodernists and others who would not want to use the standardized terminology would not join, but if the system became sufficiently influential, this would presumably be to their disadvantage.
‘Influence’ is a strange thing as it depends not only on the factors we want it to depend on. ‘Ideally’ we’d want scientific results to be the ultimate criterion but the effort to publish in high impact journals shows that it is not so. It could a very long time until such a system is fixated in the scientific ecosystem.
My idea is very much in line with the Unity of Science movement; an idea that I am unfashionably positive to. Science should not be compartmentalized—even though there should of course be a thorough division of labour science should be a heavily integrated enterprise.
I’m learning more and more that my thoughts are not original.
It could be worse but a non-profit scientific association holding back the advancement of science through locking up knowledge is a serious issue.
The DSM-5 is more problematic. People who get hit strongly on the head often develop an depression. Should psychologists really diagnose them with the same “depression” as the person who’s depressed because his parent died?
I don’t think so. That means we need to develop better vocabulary and better tests to distinguish those two people who get labeled the same via DSM-5 criteria.
It would also be nice to have criteria for depression that are optimized in a way that two psychologists will agree on whether a particular person is depressed.
Let’s say the fMRI people finally do something useful and find a way to diagnose depression via fMRI and give us an objective numerical score for how depressed someone is. Depression_fMRI won’t be exactly the same thing as depression_DSM5.
Maybe we need 5 different depression definitions and test interventions for every depression definition separately to find the best treatment for particular patients.
Looking up the definition of what depression means prevents that process from going forward.
Sure, but standardization has, by and large, been to the better, I would argue. If we hadn’t converged on e.g. a specific terminology on measuring various quantities, communication would have been much harder (and to the extent that we have not converged, for instance because Britons and Americans use alternatives to the metric system, this gives rise to lots of unnecessary complications.) But you’re right that it could lead to problems. ACS’ practice seems quite malign.
The point about it being hard to get different disciplines agree on one terminology because of different standards and norms is a good one. I agree with it, and I don’t think consensus is possible. The question is whether it is necessary. I’m thinking one could try to set up this system and let researchers join if they want (e.g. if they want to advertise their results through the system). Postmodernists and others who would not want to use the standardized terminology would not join, but if the system became sufficiently influential, this would presumably be to their disadvantage.
My idea is very much in line with the Unity of Science movement; an idea that I am unfashionably positive to. Science should not be compartmentalized—even though there should of course be a thorough division of labour science should be a heavily integrated enterprise.
‘Influence’ is a strange thing as it depends not only on the factors we want it to depend on. ‘Ideally’ we’d want scientific results to be the ultimate criterion but the effort to publish in high impact journals shows that it is not so. It could a very long time until such a system is fixated in the scientific ecosystem.
I’m learning more and more that my thoughts are not original.
It could be worse but a non-profit scientific association holding back the advancement of science through locking up knowledge is a serious issue.
The DSM-5 is more problematic. People who get hit strongly on the head often develop an depression. Should psychologists really diagnose them with the same “depression” as the person who’s depressed because his parent died?
I don’t think so. That means we need to develop better vocabulary and better tests to distinguish those two people who get labeled the same via DSM-5 criteria.
It would also be nice to have criteria for depression that are optimized in a way that two psychologists will agree on whether a particular person is depressed.
Let’s say the fMRI people finally do something useful and find a way to diagnose depression via fMRI and give us an objective numerical score for how depressed someone is. Depression_fMRI won’t be exactly the same thing as depression_DSM5.
Maybe we need 5 different depression definitions and test interventions for every depression definition separately to find the best treatment for particular patients.
Looking up the definition of what depression means prevents that process from going forward.