You are not wrong but he's not either. The science of science, or metascience, is a field of epistemology, is a philosophy of science. They are all part of the same thing.
Some of the research in this area is misleading, I'd even maybe say poorly conducted, and I worry it will be taken too much at face value by policy-makers and administrators.
The conclusion that institutition doesn't matter, for example, seems ridiculous and flies in the face of a lot of IO research. People move for reasons, for example; the question isn't whether productivity changes after a move on average, it's what would have happened to an individual researcher if they had stayed in a given situation relative to what would have happened after a move to another situation. There's a lot of cliques, the moves aren't random, etc.
It's a bit like concluding that you can determine the importance of a paper solely by looking at the impact factor of a journal.
8 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 32.4 ms ] threadThat would be the Philosophy of Science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience
http://metrics.stanford.edu/
Epistemology is philosophy of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Epistemologists don't use methods that would make it science.
The conclusion that institutition doesn't matter, for example, seems ridiculous and flies in the face of a lot of IO research. People move for reasons, for example; the question isn't whether productivity changes after a move on average, it's what would have happened to an individual researcher if they had stayed in a given situation relative to what would have happened after a move to another situation. There's a lot of cliques, the moves aren't random, etc.
It's a bit like concluding that you can determine the importance of a paper solely by looking at the impact factor of a journal.
if you want the real deal for the title, see STS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science,_technology_and_societ...