Novelty versus Replicability: Virtues and Vices in the Reward System of Science

Philosophy of Science 84 (5):1031-1043 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The reward system of science is the priority rule. The first scientist making a new discovery is rewarded with prestige, while second runners get little or nothing. Michael Strevens, following Philip Kitcher, defends this reward system, arguing that it incentivizes an efficient division of cognitive labor. I argue that this assessment depends on strong implicit assumptions about the replicability of findings. I question these assumptions on the basis of metascientific evidence and argue that the priority rule systematically discourages replication. My analysis leads us to qualify Kitcher and Strevens’s contention that a priority-based reward system is normatively desirable for science.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ROMNVR
Revision history
Archival date: 2017-05-25
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 13 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Is Peer Review a Good Idea?Heesen, Remco & Bright, Liam Kofi
The Scientific Ponzi Scheme.Zollman, Kevin J. S.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-05-25

Total views
205 ( #17,561 of 44,235 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
87 ( #6,448 of 44,235 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.