Looking for a word to describe a slice of meta-science:
I'm looking for a word for that slice of science that discusses how we should go about doing science. I'm talking about the realm that is often offered up in what scientists often call "think pieces", "opinions", and "perspectives".
Because few would call the stuff of think pieces 'philosophy', philosophy of science" isn't the right term, but the notion is definitely overlapping with that field.
I think of it as an an arm of 'metascience', but that word itself is an umbrella term that refers to many things (like reproducibility and incentive structures for scientists).
#HasokChang coined the term "complementary science" to refer to the study of history to inform how we should do science; that's too specific.
Do you know of an existing word for this?
How does "perspective science" strike you?
@NicoleCRust (thanks)
I agree - it's a word that probably sends more scientists running for the hills than even philosophy (but closer to what you're getting at, I think).
I wish I had one! To me it also involves an aesthetic component, what it means for a paper or an experiment not just to be important, but "beautiful" (classic examples here are Meselson and Stahl & Luria-Delbruck).
@cyrilpedia it's funny it seems like the word "practice" or "job" works in the examples @NicoleCRust had like "Today I'll talk about the practice of science" or "that was a great job" but we use "experiment" here instead.
@schoppik @NicoleCRust
That's interesting, I read her initial toot a bit differently, as one level removed: the job or practice of understanding the scientific job or practice :)
@cyrilpedia @NicoleCRust well I didn't have a migraine before but now I feel one coming on thanks ever so much
@schoppik @NicoleCRust I'm sorry the toot provoked a somatic response.
@cyrilpedia @NicoleCRust fair, but it was worth it just so you could type that brand new sentence!
@cyrilpedia @schoppik @NicoleCRust
That's where I took it at first. The whole Nietzsche crisis of meaning thing - which is why I thought of philosophy and sociology needing a bigger role. If society goes apeshit and torches all the laboratories, what's going to become of science? They're already attacking universities pretty damn hard because of that. Epistemology is maybe a bigger "hole." The fact that some things might not be knowable and science is ignoring that, affects problem number 1.
@cyrilpedia
Thank you - right direction, for sure. To elaborate a bit more, I'm looking for a word that evokes something meaningful for scientists. e.g. "That paper/book is a great/bad X." "Today I'm going to talk about X." "Talking about X is a good use / waste of time". I fear that if scientists see the word "epistemology" at the end of the hall, they'll turn the corner. You think about communication between scientists a lot and you're really great at it. Do you agree?