4 ms·
I’m skeptical of this last sentence; I’m not sure that science is so responsive to new data either. After the myriad papers published on the replicability crisi
by ekam 5y ago
I’m skeptical of this last sentence; I’m not sure that science is so responsive to new data either. After the myriad papers published on the replicability crisis, citation rings and the like, academic institutions have failed to change substantially with regards to either structure or process.
- adrianN 5y agoScience is done by humans and we're not very good at changing our opinions, in particular at institutional levels. However there is a difference between a priori stating that your dogma is infallible like religions typically do, and at least trying to follow the scientific process.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- michaelmrose 5y agoReligions hold that their positions are that of the immortal and infallible creator of the universe and hold them sometimes on pain of executing nonbelievers thousands of years later. These lies created from nothing are so resilient because its difficult to amend what you held to be divine truth. Scientific theories carry with them the premise that they are merely the best theory so far and are subject to revision as new data comes to light. Some may jealously guard the fruits of their labor against newer better understanding and people both lie and fail to do the proper due diligence but the process though flawed because it is carried out by flawed humans is fundamentally different and better.
- dartharva 5y agoI'm interested in knowing, how exactly would you suggest institutions go about fixing the replicability crisis? With how things are as of now, I can't think of any way the scientific community can easily fix this problem.