4 ms·
> The current system is not perfect but it’s far better than no system at all. you should question this assertion. your assertion is dependent on the assumpti
by dnautics 6mo ago
> The current system is not perfect but it’s far better than no system at all.
you should question this assertion. your assertion is dependent on the assumption that science is a strictly positive sum game (with respect to funding). i am saying it is not, and i have provided the mechanistic explanation of why it's not.
all i ask people to think about is: bad science is worth negative.
- notahacker 6mo agoimagine trying to insinuate with a straight face that firing everyone on a funding oversight body because they queried the executive branch bypassing the oversight is somehow going to reduce fraudulent research and grift in state sponsored science...
- dnautics 6mo agothe existence of a body named X does not imply they were doing X, or doing X well. a better argument would be that trump doing this is possibly toxic because the process of resetting becomes overly political and associated with trump shenanigans. i guess that argument was too sophisticated to make
- notahacker 6mo agoThe possibility a body may have not being doing X perfectly does not mean that anybody should even consider the possibility that centralising X in the hands of the "vaccines cause autism" and "we have different ways of calculating percentages" division of the executive branch instead - the thing that actually happened - is anything other than a bad idea. Linking Trump's characteristic firing of anybody who questions his actions to a replication crisis he and his acolytes wouldn't be interested in solving even if they had the slightest understanding of it is far too disingenuous an argument to elicit a "sophisticated" response, or indeed anything other than contemptuous dismissal.