(Let's keep this civil, free from personal attacks. Save them for more serious problems in the tech world, like racism/misogyny.) Social fields lead to people

(Let's keep this civil, free from personal attacks. Save them for more serious problems in the tech world, like racism/misogyny.) Social fields lead to people questioning local power systems, like states. These power systems happen to also fund research. Take economics for instance. A rational curriculum would help people invent more advanced economic systems. Textbooks might try to enumerate many possible kinds of economic systems (encouraging students to do better), and we might spend at least billions experimenting with radically different alternatives. We'd encourage diverse researchers, particularly from groups suffering under the current economic regime. (As they'd naturally have interesting critiques.) The only thing like this I've seen is Z's "economic vision instructional", which is outside the university system. But unfortunately, we're in a universe where economists basically work within a religious priesthood, to constrain solutions. Universities may tolerate certain ideological rivals to state religions, but within bounds. (So capitalist states may be fine with top-down forms of marxism.) Even the hard sciences are under attack. Take (http://disciplinedminds.com/ http://disciplinedminds.com/). However, states see the sciences as important to their economies. And the problem of the soft social "sciences" is that science doesn't easily apply to complex systems like psychology. There are other modes of inquiry than just science. But social pseudoscientists (like economists) naturally want the hard-won respect accorded to hard sciences.