3 ms·

> not a monolith > I highly doubt any of them Do you see the problem with your reasoning here? If you say scientists are not a monolith, then you don’t get to

> not a monolith > I highly doubt any of them Do you see the problem with your reasoning here? If you say scientists are not a monolith, then you don’t get to make sweeping generalizations about them.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> If you say scientists are not a monolith, then you don’t get to make sweeping generalizations about them. Sure you can. Humans are not a monolith but humans don't worship the Dark God-Eater Yglocth-Tyr. Both statements are accurate. Largely because he doesn't exist, in much the same way as there's no such thing as a macro level threat to scientists ability to ask for funding. It's not a real concept. If you feel compelled to argue that there may be some people who do act this way despite it being irrelevant, great, you win points on pedantry and nothing changes. This line: > Remember all it takes a single dissenter to bury a paper. Is not accurate
- programmarchy 4y ago
  The discussion of how Big Science presents a macro level threat has been ongoing since at least WWII. It's no secret that the way things are funded have introduced bias or in some cases completely undermined the scientific method. There's the opportunity cost of Big Science displacing smaller, more independent researchers, the replication crisis, the publish or perish culture that has developed, etc. It's because of the concerns raised by the scientific community that the paltry checks and balances we do have even exist. So it's totally off base to write off this history of concern as non-existent, or pedantry. It's also wrong to say a single dissenter can't bury a paper. It depends on the field, but in some fields there will only be one referee, and even when there are multiple referees, if the dissenter is a "leading authority" then they can absolutely bury the paper single-handedly.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    > It's also wrong to say a single dissenter can't bury a paper. It depends on the field, but in some fields there will only be one referee, and even when there are multiple referees, if the dissenter is a "leading authority" then they can absolutely bury the paper single-handedly. The implication of the phrasing "It only takes one" tends to imply that anyone can do something. Not that there exists a single entity that can do it. You wouldn't say "remember, it only takes one person to pass an executive order". I also just don't agree with the claim that one person can bury a paper across an entire field. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many idiot papers being published about covid from quacks. > So it's totally off base to write off this history of concern as non-existent, or pedantry. There is no big science. There's DARPA, sure. But it's hardly "big science"

spywaregorilla 4y ago

> If you say scientists are not a monolith, then you don’t get to make sweeping generalizations about them. Sure you can. Humans are not a monolith but humans don't worship the Dark God-Eater Yglocth-Tyr. Both statements are accurate. Largely because he doesn't exist, in much the same way as there's no such thing as a macro level threat to scientists ability to ask for funding. It's not a real concept. If you feel compelled to argue that there may be some people who do act this way despite it being irrelevant, great, you win points on pedantry and nothing changes. This line: > Remember all it takes a single dissenter to bury a paper. Is not accurate

programmarchy 4y ago
The discussion of how Big Science presents a macro level threat has been ongoing since at least WWII. It's no secret that the way things are funded have introduced bias or in some cases completely undermined the scientific method. There's the opportunity cost of Big Science displacing smaller, more independent researchers, the replication crisis, the publish or perish culture that has developed, etc. It's because of the concerns raised by the scientific community that the paltry checks and balances we do have even exist. So it's totally off base to write off this history of concern as non-existent, or pedantry. It's also wrong to say a single dissenter can't bury a paper. It depends on the field, but in some fields there will only be one referee, and even when there are multiple referees, if the dissenter is a "leading authority" then they can absolutely bury the paper single-handedly.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > It's also wrong to say a single dissenter can't bury a paper. It depends on the field, but in some fields there will only be one referee, and even when there are multiple referees, if the dissenter is a "leading authority" then they can absolutely bury the paper single-handedly. The implication of the phrasing "It only takes one" tends to imply that anyone can do something. Not that there exists a single entity that can do it. You wouldn't say "remember, it only takes one person to pass an executive order". I also just don't agree with the claim that one person can bury a paper across an entire field. Otherwise we wouldn't have seen so many idiot papers being published about covid from quacks. > So it's totally off base to write off this history of concern as non-existent, or pedantry. There is no big science. There's DARPA, sure. But it's hardly "big science"