Scientody versus academia

Here - h/t hbdchick - is a powerpoint of the incentives involved in "science" and professional academia.

For my part I agree with the dissidents that "science" has been so polluted - mostly by academia - that a new word for "practice of the Popperian method" (or even Bayes') is required. "Scientody" it is.

I like to think I am a "good scientist" but I do have some academic tendencies. That's why I self-publish for the most part.

Be skeptical of your results v. "Sell" your results - I do sell my results. And then I sometimes have to go back on them, which is why Throne of Glass was such a moving target 2015-16: the closest it's got to a review was Dr Fred Donner 2017, in a footnote, complaining about it changing so much up to then. On the other hand: nobody else, not even Donner, gave me that feedback that its last chapter was crap and had to be shorn of, what, nine pages. tl;dr: I do practice self-skepticism, even if it's belated.

Interpret conclusions carefully v. Highlight/exaggerate importance - My problem is the Interesting If True meme. I think I give my own work all the respect its findings ask for. The issue is, what if I got it wrong? I've been insufficiently careful in the past. No surprise to my readers.

Publish negative results v. Publish "strategically" - This comes with a comic on a large stack of The Daily Journal of Negative Results next to small stacks of Nature and Science. I still don't know what it means unless we're saying, "academics don't like to debunk a bunk article". I'm clearly on the pro-scientody side here.

Ignore social prestige v. Use impact factors to make writing decisions - Yeah, I suppose my focus on the early Umayyad-era literature has been more controversial than if I had kept myself to the later years and the 'Abbasids.

Challenge authority v. Cite authority. Make friends - I stink at making friends anyway. I'm interested only in authorities who get it right. Or in those (I'll even name one: Ruqayya Khan) who get it most amusingly wrong.

Replicate. Replicate. v. Replicate... if you must - In the Islamic work, I'm always going back on the document cross-connections. The way "replicate" works here is: if I think 28 < 7, I'm off to see if, say, 27 < 26, 27 < 25; and then 25-26 < 7. They all have to line up. If they do: replication has happened.

As scientody, I'd say my work on Islam is classed as "headstrong". Which is why I rarely dare to publish on an outside platform.