5 ms·

Science is about money and publishing. We find sponsor, we publish, we get money. There is nothing hard to understand about this business model!

Version467 4y ago
You are confusing science with the social process of science and how it is applied in academia. Science is a way to get to the truth. It has no concept of money or grant makers, or academic institutions. The social process of science is more complicated and yes, academia has developed some perverse incentives to keep the publishing mill running, regardless of scientific insights. But that has nothing to do with the article. I'd recommend that you actually go and read the relativity of wrong, it's not that long and most of it is just as accurate today as it was then.
- t344344 4y ago
  > You are confusing science with ... academia. Academia is the science. You can not separate those two. Not after last three years. I get the idea and process, read Asimov, have PhD etc...
  - HPsquared 4y ago
    Scientific institutions vs. scientific method. Pravda vs istina.
    - t344344 4y ago
      Yeah, people have to fight for the truth, to give legitimacy to large corporations!
  - agentgumshoe 4y ago
    I think more so the last three years tried to convince us that the Government is the science. Academia just went along.
- friendzis 4y ago
  Yes, science and academia are not the same, but this distinction is largely meaningless precisely because as you yourself say "the social process of science is more complicated" as in science does not happen in a vacuum. Science is largely by product of academia, if you will. While the theoretical scientific method itself may be a way to get to actual truth, the published science - knowledge that will be known, preserved and built upon - is a result of academic process, not some ultimate truth-seeking. In a practical sense science is the social process of science even if there is innate ontological difference.

Version467 4y ago

You are confusing science with the social process of science and how it is applied in academia. Science is a way to get to the truth. It has no concept of money or grant makers, or academic institutions. The social process of science is more complicated and yes, academia has developed some perverse incentives to keep the publishing mill running, regardless of scientific insights. But that has nothing to do with the article. I'd recommend that you actually go and read the relativity of wrong, it's not that long and most of it is just as accurate today as it was then.

t344344 4y ago
> You are confusing science with ... academia. Academia is the science. You can not separate those two. Not after last three years. I get the idea and process, read Asimov, have PhD etc...
- HPsquared 4y ago
  Scientific institutions vs. scientific method. Pravda vs istina.
  - t344344 4y ago
    Yeah, people have to fight for the truth, to give legitimacy to large corporations!
- agentgumshoe 4y ago
  I think more so the last three years tried to convince us that the Government is the science. Academia just went along.
friendzis 4y ago
Yes, science and academia are not the same, but this distinction is largely meaningless precisely because as you yourself say "the social process of science is more complicated" as in science does not happen in a vacuum. Science is largely by product of academia, if you will. While the theoretical scientific method itself may be a way to get to actual truth, the published science - knowledge that will be known, preserved and built upon - is a result of academic process, not some ultimate truth-seeking. In a practical sense science is the social process of science even if there is innate ontological difference.