metasciencethat

Metasciencethat is a term used in some metascience discussions to denote a reflexive, proposition-driven framework for evaluating how scientific knowledge is produced. The coinage blends metascience with a focus on the propositions or that statements scientists rely on when designing studies and interpreting results, highlighting the meta-level claims about what constitutes evidence, causality, and generalizability.

The term is not widely formalized and is not present in major metascience journals; it appears primarily in blogs, discussion forums, and draft papers as a heuristic rather than a formal discipline. Proponents describe metasciencethat as focusing on the language of science—the assumptions, theories, methods, and evidence criteria that underwrite research programs—rather than only on outcomes like replication rates.

Methodologically, metasciencethat draws on meta-research, philosophy of science, and science and technology studies to analyze how researchers frame hypotheses, select methods, report results, and make inferences. It often emphasizes transparency, preregistration, robust statistics, and critical appraisal of incentives.

Critics argue that the term can be vague or redundant with broader metascience discussions, and warn that overemphasis on language might obscure empirical improvements. Nevertheless, metasciencethat serves as a prompt for reflexive evaluation of scientific practice and its rationales.