Publish what? A reply to Scarano

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mattos,Eduardo Arcoverde de
Data de Publicação: 2009
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Botany
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-84042009000300020
Resumo: Fabio Scarano (2008) shows an attractive picture of the motivations leading to the final goal of the scientific enterprise, i.e. why scientists must publish their findings. Moreover, he proposes that scientists must aim for creativity and originality through question-driven papers, rather than unenlightening descriptive ones. I agree, but I will show that this view, albeit necessary, is incomplete. The most important flaw is that he does not show how that, in order to be creative and original one needs a deep understanding of a domain of knowledge. I will argue that these qualities cannot be reached in a theoretical vacuum. It must be remembered that the scientific enterprise is a complex cognitive process. One can only advance, learn and understand from the springboard of what one already knows. The improvement of established theories or the proposition of new ones can only be possible through a deep analysis, synthesis and integration of accepted scientific knowledge. This is only possible through the scrutiny of the concepts, propositions and predictions of accepted theories. Going deeper into Scarano's ideas, I propose that to further our comprehension of nature and to give a basis for the generation of knowledge, Brazilian ecologists should look for a specific set of question-driven papers. These are what I will call the 'why-question' papers. Only why-question driven papers can provide accounts which advance scientific knowledge and foster explanations of the mechanisms behind ecological processes.
id SBSP-1_c243bec4fd3f4395b3713b8062977400
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0100-84042009000300020
network_acronym_str SBSP-1
network_name_str Brazilian Journal of Botany
repository_id_str
spelling Publish what? A reply to Scaranoscience in Brazilscientific knowledgetheories in ecologyFabio Scarano (2008) shows an attractive picture of the motivations leading to the final goal of the scientific enterprise, i.e. why scientists must publish their findings. Moreover, he proposes that scientists must aim for creativity and originality through question-driven papers, rather than unenlightening descriptive ones. I agree, but I will show that this view, albeit necessary, is incomplete. The most important flaw is that he does not show how that, in order to be creative and original one needs a deep understanding of a domain of knowledge. I will argue that these qualities cannot be reached in a theoretical vacuum. It must be remembered that the scientific enterprise is a complex cognitive process. One can only advance, learn and understand from the springboard of what one already knows. The improvement of established theories or the proposition of new ones can only be possible through a deep analysis, synthesis and integration of accepted scientific knowledge. This is only possible through the scrutiny of the concepts, propositions and predictions of accepted theories. Going deeper into Scarano's ideas, I propose that to further our comprehension of nature and to give a basis for the generation of knowledge, Brazilian ecologists should look for a specific set of question-driven papers. These are what I will call the 'why-question' papers. Only why-question driven papers can provide accounts which advance scientific knowledge and foster explanations of the mechanisms behind ecological processes.Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo2009-09-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-84042009000300020Brazilian Journal of Botany v.32 n.3 2009reponame:Brazilian Journal of Botanyinstname:Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo (SBSP)instacron:SBSP10.1590/S0100-84042009000300020info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMattos,Eduardo Arcoverde deeng2009-12-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0100-84042009000300020Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/rbb/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpbrazbot@gmail.com||brazbot@gmail.com1806-99590100-8404opendoar:2009-12-07T00:00Brazilian Journal of Botany - Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo (SBSP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Publish what? A reply to Scarano
title Publish what? A reply to Scarano
spellingShingle Publish what? A reply to Scarano
Mattos,Eduardo Arcoverde de
science in Brazil
scientific knowledge
theories in ecology
title_short Publish what? A reply to Scarano
title_full Publish what? A reply to Scarano
title_fullStr Publish what? A reply to Scarano
title_full_unstemmed Publish what? A reply to Scarano
title_sort Publish what? A reply to Scarano
author Mattos,Eduardo Arcoverde de
author_facet Mattos,Eduardo Arcoverde de
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Mattos,Eduardo Arcoverde de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv science in Brazil
scientific knowledge
theories in ecology
topic science in Brazil
scientific knowledge
theories in ecology
description Fabio Scarano (2008) shows an attractive picture of the motivations leading to the final goal of the scientific enterprise, i.e. why scientists must publish their findings. Moreover, he proposes that scientists must aim for creativity and originality through question-driven papers, rather than unenlightening descriptive ones. I agree, but I will show that this view, albeit necessary, is incomplete. The most important flaw is that he does not show how that, in order to be creative and original one needs a deep understanding of a domain of knowledge. I will argue that these qualities cannot be reached in a theoretical vacuum. It must be remembered that the scientific enterprise is a complex cognitive process. One can only advance, learn and understand from the springboard of what one already knows. The improvement of established theories or the proposition of new ones can only be possible through a deep analysis, synthesis and integration of accepted scientific knowledge. This is only possible through the scrutiny of the concepts, propositions and predictions of accepted theories. Going deeper into Scarano's ideas, I propose that to further our comprehension of nature and to give a basis for the generation of knowledge, Brazilian ecologists should look for a specific set of question-driven papers. These are what I will call the 'why-question' papers. Only why-question driven papers can provide accounts which advance scientific knowledge and foster explanations of the mechanisms behind ecological processes.
publishDate 2009
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2009-09-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-84042009000300020
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0100-84042009000300020
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/S0100-84042009000300020
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Botany v.32 n.3 2009
reponame:Brazilian Journal of Botany
instname:Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo (SBSP)
instacron:SBSP
instname_str Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo (SBSP)
instacron_str SBSP
institution SBSP
reponame_str Brazilian Journal of Botany
collection Brazilian Journal of Botany
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Botany - Sociedade Botânica de São Paulo (SBSP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv brazbot@gmail.com||brazbot@gmail.com
_version_ 1754734840281825280