3 ms·
> There's just the practice of science. Sure. But author doesn't state that there is ideal science (STEM) and science muddled with politics (social sciences).
by ernst_klim 6y ago
> There's just the practice of science.
Sure. But author doesn't state that there is ideal science (STEM) and science muddled with politics (social sciences).
Author says that there are good social institutions (like American judicial systems) and bad ones (like Russian judicial system), and that STEM is the case of the former one (although it has quite a lot of problems as well), while social sciences are rather a case of bad corrupted institution.
I think that author's idea of feedback loop is really interesting and reminds me of how things are going in other social institutions as well.
When we have feedback loops which incentives corruption, we get corrupted badly functioning institutions and vice versa. I think ``Why nations fail'' approach this from the same angle.
- angrais 6y agoHow you've described the social sciences being mudded with politics is the same in large parts of STEM, particularly the Technology and Education parts. Of course, as GP stated, everything is political so securing tenure, being invited to speak, etc, are political and social decision making processes that impact all aspects of STEM.
- ernst_klim 6y ago> How you've described the social sciences being mudded with politics is the same in large parts of STEM Sure, as anything else. And I've explicitly stated that this is not the point. The point is that politics leads to bad science in former case and good (relatively and for the most part) science in case of STEM, exactly like politics leads to great judicial system in US and terrible judicial system in Russia. Because politics could lead to great checks and balances and good incentives, or it could lead to cronyism, corruption and regulatory capture, based on how the institution is constructed/designed, and its relations with other institutions.