3 ms·
My point is if you don't think the ship was already sinking you are hopelessly naive. Consider the possibility that scientific funding is net social negative (
by throwawaymaths 2y ago
My point is if you don't think the ship was already sinking you are hopelessly naive. Consider the possibility that scientific funding is net social negative (scary, I know, but possible, if the only people in the system are fraudsters at the top and good scientists forced to chase after or try to replicate or refute fraudulent results for careerist reasons). Then cutting all funds would be socially good.
- const_cast 2y agoThere’s no reason to believe scientific research as a whole is a net-negative. This anti-science populist message is tired. The reality is that a lot of this research has saved innumerable lives. The solution is never, and I do literally mean never, burn it all down. This is a populist message because it’s easy and appeals to the lowest common denominator of human. It’s intellectually lazy, and supremely evil in its simplicity. Yes, the institution is flawed. Because all institutions are flawed. It should be improved, not set on fire. These are solvable issues. But proclaiming the best solution is no solution is the worst kind of anti-solution. Everyone loses. Everyone. There are no winners in this mentality, only losers and slightly less losers.