Significado real do número de citações

https://jornal.usp.br/artigos/significado-real-do-numero-de-citacoes-de-um-artigo-cientifico/?fbclid=IwAR1NsD1FtAAq2ySaATzPD-D1aIbh3WgH0x7f8PaKa0GziYiqhjbz3Dk-Hrs

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologia_do_conhecimento_cient%C3%ADfico

Sociologia do conhecimento científico

Inteligência socialmente descomprometida

e (aqui, segundo pensou Manheim, indo além de Marx) a ideologia caracterizando não somente o pensamento do adversário mas também o do próprio pensador. Com o conceito geral de ideologia alcança-se o nível da sociologia do conhecimento, a compreensão de que não há pensamento humano (apenas com exceções antes mencionadas) que seja imune às influências ideologizantes de seu contexto social.

Seja como for, Manheim acreditava que as influência ideologizantes, embora não pudessem ser completamente erradicadas, podiam ser mitigadas pela análise sistemática do maior número possível de posições variáveis socialmente fundadas. Em outras palavras, o objeto do pensamento torna-se progressivamente mais claro com esta acumulação de diferentes perspectivas a eles referentes. Nisso deve consistir a tarefa da sociologia do conhecimento, que se torna assim uma importante ajuda na procura de qualquer entendimento correto dos acontecimentos humanos.

Manheim acreditava que os diferentes grupos sociais variam enormemente sua capacidade de transcender deste modo sua própria estreita posição. Depositava a maior esperança na "inteligência socialmente descomprometida", uma espécie de estrato intersticial que acreditava estar relativamente livre de interesse de classe.

No livro A construção social da realidade (p. 23)

Symposium about Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAI1w_3U4mc

These are extracts from the Symposium about Scientific Freedom and the inauguration of the Institute for Scientific Freedom, which took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, 9 March 2019. Watch the lectures here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list... World renowned Danish scientist Peter C Gøtzsche is the founder of the institute. The Institute’s primary area of focus is healthcare and the institute has three main visions: - All science should strive to be free from financial conflicts of interest. - All science should be published as soon as possible, and made freely accessible. - All scientific data, including study protocols, should be freely accessible, allowing others to do their own analyses.

The healthcare system is broken

The healthcare system is broken - how can we change it? David Hammerstein

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg1UwHKLPTg

[Canal no youtube de um Simpósio sobre liberdade científica]

David Hammerstein at the Symposium about Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen, 9 March 2019. Lecture: "Public interest healthcare research and the change of our biomedical innovation model". David Hammerstein has been working since 2015 as a civil society advocate for the Commons Network, a small German NGO with offices in Berlin and Brussels of which he is co-founder. The Commons Network focusses on the defense of the knowledge commons and access to medicines. He also works as an advocate for the World Blind Union and the European Blind Union on issues of disability rights. From 2010 to 2015, he worked as a senior advocacy officer in Brussels for the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, platform of over 60 transatlantic consumer and citizens organizations, on EU and UN policy issues related to access to knowledge and access to medicines. From 2004-2009, he was elected Member of the European Parliament. He was a member of its Industry, Research and Energy Committee where he specialized in issues related to scientific and academic research and innovation. He also was the spokesperson for the Greens on the EP Petitions Committee that defends citizens rights. This lecture is part of the Symposium about Scientific Freedom and the inauguration of the Institute for Scientific Freedom, which took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, 9 March 2019. World renowned Danish scientist Peter C Gøtzsche is the founder of the institute. The Institute’s primary area of focus is healthcare and the institute has three main visions: - All science should strive to be free from financial conflicts of interest. - All science should be published as soon as possible, and made freely accessible. - All scientific data, including study protocols, should be freely accessible, allowing others to do their own analyses.

Dissecting The Crisis of Science - Andrea Saltelli on The Corbett Report

Corbett Report Extras

corbettreport

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RmgOLl1vIQQ/

What is the crisis of science, and what does it tell us about the interface between science and policy? Is there a way to stop the debate over the crisis from becoming a political battling ground? And, if not, what does this mean for the future of science itself? Join Professor Andrea Saltelli and James Corbett for this in-depth exploration of the philosophy of science today on The Corbett Report

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

John P. A. Ioannidis

Abstract

Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.