Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32004362›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2019

The Language of Science.

Matthew P Normand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating Experts' Consensus on Behavioral Principles.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Social validity as an interactive process.Journal of applied behavior analysis
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Matthew P NormandDepartment of Psychology, University of the Pacific, 3601 Pacific Ave, Stockton, CA 95211 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6371-9675

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science is what scientists do and, especially, what they say about what they do. Science is a way of talking about the world that enables the listener to behave more effectively in that world. Understanding science, then, is a matter of understanding the language of science. Scientific verbal practices are codified and recorded so that they can affect the behavior of all scientists, including those without access to the original controlling variables. What we know about the world is simply the way we have learned to talk about the world. We know best what is most useful about the world, in the sense that what we know enables us to behave effectively in the world. Scientists are unique in that they, more so than non-scientists, have the experience of behaving as effectively as possible-they can predict and control. This is what makes all the difference, in the sense that it makes science different from other ways of knowing about the world. Science is not simply one way of knowing about the world, it is arguably the most effective way of knowing about it. Scientific talk leads to effective action.

Indexed as

EpistemologyFunctional analysisKnowledgeLanguageScienceSkepticismVerbal behavior

Identifiers

PMID32004362
PMCPMC6768924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.