4 ms·
> I'm more worried about, "how do we illustrate the clear need for a change without pouring gasoline directly onto the anti-intellectual bonfires that already e
by idontpost 4y ago
> I'm more worried about, "how do we illustrate the clear need for a change without pouring gasoline directly onto the anti-intellectual bonfires that already exist?"
Asking this question is in and of itself directly pouring gasoline onto the bonfires.
Just work on fixing the damn problems. Trying to PR them is part of the problem.
- matthewdgreen 4y agoIt doesn’t really matter either way. At a meta-level this isn’t about Alzheimer’s, and it isn’t about “fixing science”. Nobody in this discussion has any constructive idea how to cure this horrifying disease, or how to build a scientific establishment that isn’t vulnerable to fraud. If that’s all we cared about this would be a boring policy discussion about how to fix peer review. But nobody here is interested in having that discussion: this discussion is about whether we should discard the input of the scientific community as hopelessly corrupt.