> Given the public awareness that science can be low-quality or corrupted, that whole fields can be misdirected for decades (see nutrition, on cholesterol and s

> Given the public awareness that science can be low-quality or corrupted, that whole fields can be misdirected for decades (see nutrition, on cholesterol and sugar), and that some basic fields must progress in the absence of any prospect of empirical testing (string theory), the naïve realism of previous generations becomes quite Medieval in its irrelevance to present realities. "basic fields must progress in the absence of any prospect of empirical testing (string theory)" What does string theory have to do with cholesterol, or sugar, or Elsevier, or non-replicability, or fake data? Perhaps "the naïve realism of previous generations becomes quite Medieval" is just some clods of mud being slung, and string theory's lack of testability is one more clod. His real agenda is "scientists must admit they're no better than liberal arts majors."