Because science typically has practical aims, the standards of good science need to go *beyond* truth. Just exemplifying those epistemic values at the top of the thread isn't good enough. Science should be "fit-for-purpose." 6/ link.springer.com/10.1007/s131...

Show Post

But that means the epistemic and practical aims of science can come into conflict. Open science is truth-promoting, in a number of ways. But doing open science well is complex, which means it can slow down research and delay regulation. 7/

Show Post

Open science is also susceptible to "adversarial reanalysis," using alternative (often shoddy) data analysis methods to manufacture doubt about research findings and, again, delay regulation. 8/ osf.io/preprints/me...

Show Post

So the truth-promoting aspects of open science can be in tension with the practical aim of efficiently identifying and regulating threats to human health and the environment. This tension is *weaponized* when the rhetoric of open science is used to promote broad anti-environmental policies. 9/

Show Post

Instead, I think scientists should be explicit about the values that motivate and influence their work. In my survey work on this — which has been published! — disclosing values like protecting human health seems to *increase* trust relative to value-freedom. 14/ www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....

Show Post