What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more

Toward a More Perfect Ethical Community of Scientists

May 2, 2013, 10:07 AM

The theoretical physicist Lee Smolin's argument that there is no scientific method attracted a lot of attention yesterday, including the following reaction from reader, social psychologist and blogger Dave Nussbaum:

This view certainly resonates with me this week, as the field of psychology grapples with its methodological shortcomings, and its past and future.

Following the recent NYT magazine article about the fraud of Diederik Stapel, I wrote a piece that objected to conflating his actions with those of his colleagues, whose methods are sometimes flawed, but fall far short of fraud. From the perspective you present, the distinction could be thought of as the difference between someone who's in the ethical community and someone who is not.

Fraud aside, though, for those inside the community, it is clear that we are not currently living up to the standards that Feyerabend would have set for us. I think there are encouraging new signs that we are moving in the right direction, but a lot more progress is needed.

To me, the question is how best to make that progress? How can we update the community's ethical norms in the most effective way. We have a collective action problem where, as individuals, it is in each of our (short term) best interests to cut corners as long as everyone else is, so long as we can deceive ourselves into thinking that it's ok. Although there has been a push to update those norms, and it has caught on to some degree, there has also been resistance and apathy.

I wonder what you, or Feyerabend, might have to say about the best ways to move toward a more perfect ethical community of scientists. Thanks for an interesting and thought-provoking piece.

Some links on the topics I discussed:

My article on Stapel: http://www.davenussbaum.com/th...

My article on reforms:http://www.davenussbaum.com/cr...

Gary Marcus in the New Yorker today on the recent dust-ups in the field: http://nyr.kr/ZW90bs

p.s. I spent a year as a post-doc in Waterloo at the UW psychology department, I'm sorry we never got the chance to meet.




Toward a More Perfect Ethic...

Newsletter: Share: