Raimund Pils

Post-Doctoral Researcher, Philosophy @UniSalzburg

Epistemology - esp. Value Theory
Philosophy of Science - esp. Realism Debate and Science Communication

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

Did you ever wonder what scientists and science communicators in physics, chemistry and biology think about scientific realism? And are experimentalists more likely realists than theorists?
@SchoeneggerPhil and I jointly conducted a study to answer these and related questions:

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

https://t.co/6vV3xFhQsc

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

Did you ever wonder what scientists and science communicators in physics, chemistry and biology think about scientific realism? And are experimentalists more likely realists than theorists?
@SchoeneggerPhil and I jointly conducted a study to answer these and related questions:

[LSE @LSEnews]

📝 Should we get rid of discussion sections in research papers?

@SchoeneggerPhil of @LSEManagement & @PilsRaimund argue they're a breeding ground for cognitive bias 🧠

Read more on @LSEImpactBlog 👇 https://t.co/B2bSvZTZhn

[LSE Impact Blog @LSEImpactBlog]

💥New: To improve social science publications let’s lose the discussion section

@SchoeneggerPhil & @PilsRaimund #SocialScience #AcWri https://t.co/yEEsmODfC4

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

Also, I am sorry to say that the paper is actually technical philosophy and does not say anything about detectives :p but it says something about the mystery of scientific knowledge.

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

New Paper out in Journal for General Philosophy of Science. (open access)
Imagine you're trying to solve a mystery and you've got two detectives on the case... (1/4) https://t.co/bMzECmrFlE

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

We follow the best explanations of the clues, but that is actually not a secure inference pattern.
Is it possible to solve the mystery? For that, you need to read the paper. (4/4)

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

@ron2718 @SchoeneggerPhil @drseanmullen This is an exciting idea. It would be worth exploring the implications of writing discussion sections in a more stripped-down manner and putting it into pre-registration.

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

New paper out in Synthese with @SchoeneggerPhil , where we propose a structural solution to the crises facing the social sciences. For more details see the tweet below and the full article here: https://t.co/jDFZWM1iVP

[Philipp Schoenegger @SchoeneggerPhil]

New paper out with @PilsRaimund!

We propose a new solution to the crises facing the social sciences: removing the discussion sections.

We argue that they harm honest scientific reporting and would provide epistemic benefits if outsourced from the standard article.

More below!

[Philipp Schoenegger @SchoeneggerPhil]

New paper out with @PilsRaimund!

We propose a new solution to the crises facing the social sciences: removing the discussion sections.

We argue that they harm honest scientific reporting and would provide epistemic benefits if outsourced from the standard article.

More below!

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

@danwilliamsphil (i) slowly introduces many main concepts of quantitative methodology, (ii) is accessible and not technical, (iii) is very recent, and (iv) is quite opinionated, so gives students in class discussion material.

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

@danwilliamsphil I used Fletcher's "How (not) to Measure Replication" just a few weeks ago in an undergrad seminar on scientific methodology. I think it's a good text for that purpose as it (i)

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

For all the epistemologists out there, my paper on "A Satisficing Theory of Epistemic Justification" just got published in The Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Open access, here: https://t.co/YLkgBs3mvZ

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

Are you interested in the scientific realism debate, stance voluntarism, and the proper integration of evidence from the history of science? My article “Scientific Realism and Blocking Strategies” just got published, here: https://t.co/7Af0RcUq21

[Philipp Schoenegger @SchoeneggerPhil]

‼️‼️PhD submitted‼️‼️

Here's some stats from the thesis:
🔴 2 years, 352 days
🔴 74,225 words
🔴 6 chapters (4 published, 2 R&R)
🔴 232 pages
🔴 11 studies (8489 participants)
🔴 97 regressions
🔴 302 reported p-values
🔴 23 appendices
🔴 318 references

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

@KimptonNye Since I also got this email, what happened?

[Raimund Pils @PilsRaimund]

@SchoeneggerPhil Great, congratulations!

[Philipp Schoenegger @SchoeneggerPhil]

Happy to have our work (jointly with @PilsRaimund) on Hayek and standpoint theory cited in this ZEIT article by @Maja_Larissa - irrespective of the main claim made in the article!

https://t.co/zYa9MkYj1f