If you look at the field of nutrition you still have researchers measuring obesity through BMI which is a crappy metric. The systems seems to fail at developing better metrics. It feels to me like part of the problem is that most researchers focus on epistemology and ignore ontology as a topic to be concerned about.
Part of why the DSM-V is so messy is that psychologists don’t take ontology seriously. Developing better ontology for a field seems to go poorly in large parts of academia.
When it comes to the world “novel” it’s worth to clarify what it means. There are a lot of new insights that don’t seem interesting to an existing academic discourse and thus have no place in it.
Sydney Brenner who got a Nobel Price for being instrumental in establishing molecular biology as a discipline said in an interview that he thinks it would be very hard to do something similar in today’s academia.
If you look at the field of nutrition you still have researchers measuring obesity through BMI which is a crappy metric. The systems seems to fail at developing better metrics. It feels to me like part of the problem is that most researchers focus on epistemology and ignore ontology as a topic to be concerned about.
Part of why the DSM-V is so messy is that psychologists don’t take ontology seriously. Developing better ontology for a field seems to go poorly in large parts of academia.
When it comes to the world “novel” it’s worth to clarify what it means. There are a lot of new insights that don’t seem interesting to an existing academic discourse and thus have no place in it.
Sydney Brenner who got a Nobel Price for being instrumental in establishing molecular biology as a discipline said in an interview that he thinks it would be very hard to do something similar in today’s academia.