5 ms·
From the article: > some people have begun to ask: “Is science broken?” > I’ve spent many months asking dozens of scientists this question, and the answer I’ve
by jonasvp 11y ago
From the article:
> some people have begun to ask: “Is science broken?”
> I’ve spent many months asking dozens of scientists this question, and the answer I’ve found is a resounding no.
News at 11: cognitive dissonance is a thing.
- robotresearcher 11y agoScience's old and new fruits benefit the lives of almost everyone on the planet every day and revolutionary new technologies, therapies and knowledge are created faster than ever before. It's accelerating, not slowing down and certainly not stopping. So it's not very broken. Things can certainly improve, and they usually do, perhaps a bit gradually. Take a long view. Science is funded by the public and not the church these days for example. But 'broken'? Not really. Edit: and non-scientists are very quick to think they know the problems and offer solutions. Working scientists are actively discussing the problems and trying things out all the time. These are not the dumbest people you'll meet. The current model is a bit like democracy - it's the worst system apart from all the other things we've ever tried. To be clear: I'm not an apologist and I'm not sweeping troubles under the rug. It's just that it is complicated, we're working on it, and it is currently much too productive to be called broken. We have to be careful not to break it.
- tdaltonc 11y agoWe don't expect insiders to objectively improve most social systems (politics, business, education, defense, etc). Why should we expect scientists to fix science (as opposed to just pushing the system to serve the insiders)?
- robotresearcher 11y agoWe do expect insiders to improve those systems. Why would outsiders know what needs done?
- WalterSear 11y agoWe would like them to, but it's reasonable not to expect them to.
- epistasis 11y agoSo the question is how is it broken, and what will the consequences of the proposed changes be? Are scientific papers meant to be textbook quality results, with absolutely no errors? Or are they meant to speed the pace of discovery of true facts? Because I would argue that they are meant to be the latter, that they are effective at that, and that trying to make them more like the former would slow the pace of discovery.
- tsotha 11y agoAm I the only one who thinks we seem to be spending a whole lot of money on research and getting mostly infinitesimal deltas in terms of results?
- robotresearcher 11y agoI hope so. The world is a very different place than it was 20 years ago, with enormous progress in technology and medicine, which are the applied arm of science.
- epistasis 11y agoI don't think you're alone in thinking that, but the question is why do you think that and how do you justify your position? Is it because you get all your science news from the internet? Because if so I would argue that you're not getting much science news. Science is not well reported by the media, so you don't hear about much that happens.