3 ms·

“Laughed at” and “ridiculed” seem to be common aspects of a dysfunctional science culture. In that, I always maintain heavy skepticism of loud, and especially m

“Laughed at” and “ridiculed” seem to be common aspects of a dysfunctional science culture. In that, I always maintain heavy skepticism of loud, and especially media-echoed, claims scientific consensus. I say that generally.

unsupp0rted 3y ago
> “Laughed at” and “ridiculed” seem to be common aspects of a dysfunctional science culture. Then is there any science culture today that isn’t dysfunctional? Any grad student can point to 5 professors who would ridicule plausible ideas.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Science that's far from politics and monetization seems generally in good shape, at least from a distance? For instance theoretic cosmology has all sorts of 'deviant' theories being widely pursued and researched in a healthy fashion. At least this correlation definitely seems to hold in reverse, where science that is closely tied to monetization or politics seems to be exceptionally intolerant, dysfunctional, and (probably consequently) also prone to absolutely abysmal replication rates.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    How is monetization the problem? The biggest issues with non replicable science are all in academia which is grant funded. Corporate labs don't seem to have unusually big issues with non replicable research. Obviously, add if they couldn't replicate it they can't monetize it.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      > How is monetization the problem Tobacco funding research to prove smoking is healthy. > The biggest issues with non replicable science are all in academia which is grant funded. Yes, that was his other point, politically charged topics are bound to create bad science. So things related to poverty, intelligence, gender, race, education etc.
    - somenameforme 3y ago
      Medical research, especially pre-clinical, stands shoulder to shoulder with social psychology in terms of replication rates. Wiki has a brief paragraph on it on their replication crisis page [1], but this [2] page does a far better job of conveying and citing all sorts of interesting data and studies. The pathway to profit for medicine is getting the FDA to approve your drug. This should only happen if the drug works, but the way the FDA determines that is by the data and studies you give them. Well at least in theory, there's also complete nonsense like aduhelm where the FDA even approved a drug their own medical panel concluded didn't work, leading to mass protest resignations. [3] That's probably an argument against shenanigans (why even bother?), but I still think it's relevant just to emphasize how dysfunctional our medical regulatory system has become. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine [2] - https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/replication-crisis-preclinical-research.html https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/replication... [3] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/health/alzheimers-drug-aduhelm-fda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/health/alzheimers-drug-ad...
trompetenaccoun 3y ago
Yep. To be fair the plate tectonics one is an extreme example, it's a famous paradigm shift. But it should make you think, eminent experts in the field went as far as calling it "pseudo-science". They didn't simply disagree with it on a professional level, some of the personal attacks against Wegener were quite vile.

unsupp0rted 3y ago

> “Laughed at” and “ridiculed” seem to be common aspects of a dysfunctional science culture. Then is there any science culture today that isn’t dysfunctional? Any grad student can point to 5 professors who would ridicule plausible ideas.

somenameforme 3y ago
Science that's far from politics and monetization seems generally in good shape, at least from a distance? For instance theoretic cosmology has all sorts of 'deviant' theories being widely pursued and researched in a healthy fashion. At least this correlation definitely seems to hold in reverse, where science that is closely tied to monetization or politics seems to be exceptionally intolerant, dysfunctional, and (probably consequently) also prone to absolutely abysmal replication rates.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  How is monetization the problem? The biggest issues with non replicable science are all in academia which is grant funded. Corporate labs don't seem to have unusually big issues with non replicable research. Obviously, add if they couldn't replicate it they can't monetize it.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > How is monetization the problem Tobacco funding research to prove smoking is healthy. > The biggest issues with non replicable science are all in academia which is grant funded. Yes, that was his other point, politically charged topics are bound to create bad science. So things related to poverty, intelligence, gender, race, education etc.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Medical research, especially pre-clinical, stands shoulder to shoulder with social psychology in terms of replication rates. Wiki has a brief paragraph on it on their replication crisis page [1], but this [2] page does a far better job of conveying and citing all sorts of interesting data and studies. The pathway to profit for medicine is getting the FDA to approve your drug. This should only happen if the drug works, but the way the FDA determines that is by the data and studies you give them. Well at least in theory, there's also complete nonsense like aduhelm where the FDA even approved a drug their own medical panel concluded didn't work, leading to mass protest resignations. [3] That's probably an argument against shenanigans (why even bother?), but I still think it's relevant just to emphasize how dysfunctional our medical regulatory system has become. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis#In_medicine [2] - https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/replication-crisis-preclinical-research.html https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/replication... [3] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/health/alzheimers-drug-aduhelm-fda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/19/health/alzheimers-drug-ad...

trompetenaccoun 3y ago

Yep. To be fair the plate tectonics one is an extreme example, it's a famous paradigm shift. But it should make you think, eminent experts in the field went as far as calling it "pseudo-science". They didn't simply disagree with it on a professional level, some of the personal attacks against Wegener were quite vile.