Reading library

Use official links rather than uploaded copies. Access notes distinguish a publisher record from an identified free full-text route; institutional entitlement is not guaranteed.

Meeting 1: Is there a scientific method?

Platt (1964). Strong Inference. Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Cleland (2002). Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science. Philosophy of Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Meeting 2: Exploratory experimentation is not theory-free

Steinle (1997). Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation. Philosophy of Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Karaca (2013). The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics. Science in Context. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Meeting 3: From coastal traces to earthquake histories

Atwater (1987). Evidence for great Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington state. Science. USGS publication record with publisher link.

Nelson et al. (1996). Identifying coseismic subsidence in tidal-wetland stratigraphic sequences at the Cascadia subduction zone of western North America. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Meeting 4: Plate tectonics: concept formation and a discriminating test

Wilson (1965). A New Class of Faults and their Bearing on Continental Drift. Nature. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Sykes (1967). Mechanism of earthquakes and nature of faulting on the mid-oceanic ridges. Journal of Geophysical Research. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Meeting 5: New sensing capability versus trustworthy measurement

Lindsey et al. (2019). Illuminating seafloor faults and ocean dynamics with dark fiber distributed acoustic sensing. Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Lindsey et al. (2020). On the Broadband Instrument Response of Fiber-Optic DAS Arrays. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth. Publisher full-text page.

Meeting 6: Explore freely; distinguish exploration from confirmation

Tukey (1962). The Future of Data Analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Nosek et al. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Free full text in PubMed Central.

Meeting 7: Field and marine research under real constraints

Powell (2007). The Rigours of an Arctic Experiment: The Precarious Authority of Field Practices in the Canadian High Arctic, 1958–1970. Environment and Planning A. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Becker et al. (2019). Fifty Years of Scientific Ocean Drilling. Oceanography. Free publisher article and PDF link.

Meeting 8: Serendipity, anomaly, and scientific interestingness

Moore (2025). The Serendipity of Discovery: Life of a Geochemist. Annual Review of Marine Science. Open-access publisher article; CC BY 4.0.

Yaqub (2018). Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy. Open-access publisher article.

Meeting 9: Hypothesis testing when several models fit

Oreskes et al. (1994). Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences. Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Beven and Freer (2001). Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Meeting 10: Scientific novelty: new to whom, compared with what?

Uzzi et al. (2013). Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact. Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Fontana et al. (2020). New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity. Research Policy. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Meeting 11: Scientific advance: cumulative work and field-shaping change

Wu et al. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Petersen et al. (2025). The disruption index suffers from citation inflation: Re-analysis of temporal CD trend and relationship with team size reveal discrepancies. Journal of Informetrics. Open-access journal article; use the 2025 version of record.

Meeting 12: Scientific polymathy: breadth, specialization, and borrowed competence

Burke (2020). The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag. Yale University Press. Publisher and JSTOR records; not open access. Use library reserve procedures for any chapter scan.

Kitcher (1990). The Division of Cognitive Labor. The Journal of Philosophy. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Meeting 13: What architecture follows from practice, and what would show it worked?

Boiko et al. (2023). Autonomous chemical research with large language models. Nature. Open-access publisher article.

Chen et al. (2025). ScienceAgentBench: Toward Rigorous Assessment of Language Agents for Data-Driven Scientific Discovery. International Conference on Learning Representations. Open conference proceedings with paper PDF and review links; no DOI invented.

Discussant-led for this meeting:

Messeri and Crockett (2024). Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research. Nature. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Flake and Fried (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Optional extensions

Boudreau et al. (2016). Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Wu et al. (2026). NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment. Open ACL Anthology proceedings with PDF and BibTeX.

Shibayama et al. (2021). Measuring novelty in science with word embedding. Open access; consult the linked 2026 correction to Table 4.

Machado (2026). Generative AI bias against scientific novelty: a cautionary tale from a small-sample evaluation of research proposals. Publisher article; the experiment concerns one funder, year, and model configuration.

Dellsén (2016). Scientific progress: Knowledge versus understanding. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Azoulay et al. (2019). Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?. Publisher offers complimentary full-text PDF.

Wang et al. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Hardwig (1991). The Role of Trust in Knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Wright et al. (2025). What and Whose Knowledge? Measuring Epistemic Diversity in Large Language Models. arXiv. Open preprint; not peer reviewed at the time of listing.

Rassenfosse et al. (2022). Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent. BMC Biology. Open access (CC BY).

Messick (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.

Correction to Shibayama et al., Table 4 (2026).

Beyond the syllabus

Systems and benchmarks rather than papers are catalogued separately in prior art. Readings the group adds during the quarter go in suggested readings.

Atwater, Brian F. 1987. “Evidence for great Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington state.” Science 236 (4804): 942–44. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.236.4804.942.

Azoulay, Pierre, Christian Fons-Rosen, and Joshua S. Graff Zivin. 2019. “Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?” American Economic Review 109 (8): 2889–920. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161574.

Becker, Keir, James A. Austin, Neville Exon, et al. 2019. “Fifty Years of Scientific Ocean Drilling.” Oceanography 32 (1): 17–21. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2019.110.

Beven, Keith, and Jim Freer. 2001. “Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology.” Journal of Hydrology 249 (1–4): 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00421-8.

Boiko, Daniil A., Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes. 2023. “Autonomous chemical research with large language models.” Nature 624: 570–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06792-0.

Boudreau, Kevin J., Eva C. Guinan, Karim R. Lakhani, and Christoph Riedl. 2016. “Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science.” Management Science 62 (10): 2765–83. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285.

Burke, Peter. 2020. The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag. Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300250022/the-polymath/.

Chen, Ziru, Shijie Chen, Yuting Ning, et al. 2025. “ScienceAgentBench: Toward Rigorous Assessment of Language Agents for Data-Driven Scientific Discovery.” International Conference on Learning Representations. https://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/paper/2025/hash/f12b4df26344f3be803c06b555252efe-Abstract-Conference.html.

Cleland, Carol E. 2002. “Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Science and Experimental Science.” Philosophy of Science 69 (3): 474–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/342455.

Dellsén, Finnur. 2016. “Scientific progress: Knowledge versus understanding.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 56: 72–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.01.003.

Flake, Jessica K., and Eiko I. Fried. 2020. “Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them.” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 3 (4): 456–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393.

Fontana, Magda, Martina Iori, Fabio Montobbio, and Roberta Sinatra. 2020. “New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity.” Research Policy 49 (7): 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104063.

Hardwig, John. 1991. “The Role of Trust in Knowledge.” The Journal of Philosophy 88 (12): 693–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2027007.

Karaca, Koray. 2013. “The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics.” Science in Context 26 (1): 93–136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889712000300.

Kitcher, Philip. 1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” The Journal of Philosophy 87 (1): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026796.

Lindsey, Nathaniel J., T. Craig Dawe, and Jonathan B. Ajo-Franklin. 2019. “Illuminating seafloor faults and ocean dynamics with dark fiber distributed acoustic sensing.” Science 366 (6469): 1103–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5881.

Lindsey, Nathaniel J., Horst Rademacher, and Jonathan B. Ajo-Franklin. 2020. “On the Broadband Instrument Response of Fiber-Optic DAS Arrays.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 125 (2): e2019JB018145. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JB018145.

Machado, Diogo. 2026. “Generative AI bias against scientific novelty: a cautionary tale from a small-sample evaluation of research proposals.” Scientometrics, ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-026-05792-x.

Messeri, Lisa, and M. J. Crockett. 2024. “Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research.” Nature 627: 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0.

Messick, Samuel. 1995. “Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning.” American Psychologist 50 (9): 741–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741.

Moore, Willard S. 2025. “The Serendipity of Discovery: Life of a Geochemist.” Annual Review of Marine Science 17: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-050823-103645.

Nelson, Alan R., Ian Shennan, and Antony J. Long. 1996. “Identifying coseismic subsidence in tidal-wetland stratigraphic sequences at the Cascadia subduction zone of western North America.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 101 (B3): 6115–35. https://doi.org/10.1029/95JB01051.

Nosek, Brian A., Charles R. Ebersole, Alexander C. DeHaven, and David T. Mellor. 2018. “The preregistration revolution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (11): 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114.

Oreskes, Naomi, Kristin Shrader-Frechette, and Kenneth Belitz. 1994. “Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences.” Science 263 (5147): 641–46. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5147.641.

Petersen, Alexander M., Felber Arroyave, and Fabio Pammolli. 2025. “The disruption index suffers from citation inflation: Re-analysis of temporal CD trend and relationship with team size reveal discrepancies.” Journal of Informetrics 19 (1): 101605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101605.

Platt, John R. 1964. “Strong Inference.” Science 146 (3642): 347–53. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.146.3642.347.

Powell, Richard C. 2007. “The Rigours of an Arctic Experiment: The Precarious Authority of Field Practices in the Canadian High Arctic, 1958–1970.” Environment and Planning A 39 (8): 1794–811. https://doi.org/10.1068/a38294.

Rassenfosse, Gaétan de, Kyle Higham, and Orion Penner. 2022. “Scientific rewards for biomedical specialization are large and persistent.” BMC Biology 20 (1): 221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-022-01400-5.

Shibayama, Sotaro, Deyun Yin, and Kuniko Matsumoto. 2021. “Measuring novelty in science with word embedding.” PLOS ONE 16 (7): e0254034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254034.

Steinle, Friedrich. 1997. “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation.” Philosophy of Science 64 (S4): S65–74. https://doi.org/10.1086/392587.

Sykes, Lynn R. 1967. “Mechanism of earthquakes and nature of faulting on the mid-oceanic ridges.” Journal of Geophysical Research 72 (8): 2131–53. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ072i008p02131.

Tukey, John W. 1962. “The Future of Data Analysis.” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33 (1): 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177704711.

Uzzi, Brian, Satyam Mukherjee, Michael Stringer, and Ben Jones. 2013. “Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact.” Science 342 (6157): 468–72. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474.

Wang, Jian, Reinhilde Veugelers, and Paula Stephan. 2017. “Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators.” Research Policy 46 (8): 1416–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006.

Wilson, J. Tuzo. 1965. “A New Class of Faults and their Bearing on Continental Drift.” Nature 207: 343–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/207343a0.

Wright, Dustin, Sarah Masud, Jared Moore, et al. 2025. What and Whose Knowledge? Measuring Epistemic Diversity in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04226. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04226.

Wu, Lingfei, Dashun Wang, and James A. Evans. 2019. “Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology.” Nature 566: 378–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9.

Wu, Wenqing, Yi Zhao, Yuzhuo Wang, et al. 2026. “NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment.” Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026, 32103–33. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1607.

Yaqub, Ohid. 2018. “Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory.” Research Policy 47 (1): 169–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.007.