4 ms·
The important point here is that science corrected itself. It saw a lack of progress from a direction of inquiry and using its established mechanisms rerouted t
by searine 1y ago
The important point here is that science corrected itself. It saw a lack of progress from a direction of inquiry and using its established mechanisms rerouted that inquiry.
To expect that every effort will succeed and be perfect is just naive. What matters is that the system has a mechanism to self-evaluate its results and change the consensus. Which it did. Which means it works. We means we shouldn't burn it down.
- s1artibartfast 1y agoI agree that part of science is making mistakes. I was reacting to the idea that the NIH and NSF academic ethics requirements are that critical self correction mechanism, or they that these institutions were responsible for pushing back and overturning the Aβ hypothesis. In reality, it is the opposite. Grant funding is gate held by review panels staffed by leading researchers in the field, and therefore bias towards the current dogma. I don't know if there is a better way, but it's inherently tied to the status quo. Edit: to be clear on my biases, I spent about 10 years trying to get funding for non Aβ research, and continually shut down by Grant review panels staffed by prominent supporters and authors on the hypothesis.