3 ms·
The reasons for resistance are reasonably understandable - most science withstands the scrutiny. Think of the alternative, where a barrage of complaints can get
by phs318u 3y ago
The reasons for resistance are reasonably understandable - most science withstands the scrutiny. Think of the alternative, where a barrage of complaints can get almost anything retracted and require the original authors to jump through hoops again and again. In a world where there's huge political value in criticising science generally, and dismantling particular areas specifically, is this what we really want?
- d0mine 3y ago> most science withstands the scrutiny If "most" means "most published papers" and "scrutiny" means "can replicate" then no, it doesn't withstand scrutiny: most published research is wrong. https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q (2016) (the exact percentages of non-replicatable articles may be different in different fields)
- phs318u 3y agoThis may be true in specific domains but does not stand across the board. Otherwise, we would not see any progression in the application of new discoveries in industry. It seems to me that the evidence of the last couple of centuries indicate that in many fields we are seeing 'progress' in the application of new knowledge. EDITED to add: What I mean by progress, is measurable changes in society e.g. the improvement of medical science leading to measurably better survival, longevity etc outcomes, or the improvement in chemistry, materials and solid-state science effecting significant change in electronics, communications, batteries etc.