Michael Crichton talked about it in his book Congo. They claimed ape research would help in fighting cancer. Did it? No, but the investors and publishers all wanted it to, so it did. The book was released in 1980.
Crichton called this stuff out on multiple occasions. I'll bring in Richard Feynman as well, with his cargo cult of science speech from 74.
But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science....if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid—not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked—to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Most "scientists" aren't scientists anymore, they're aspiring to be priests.
People forget that Michael Crichton had an actual PhD in medicine(even though he was technically not a practicing medical doctor, he still did the necessary internships). And alot of his early stuff was just pure medical drama effectively calling out alot of medical 'god complexes' where doctor's could do no wrong.
He was effectively calling out the bullshit from inside the room, so to speak.
Now we need people to understand that this happens throughout academia. You aren't allowed to question certain tenets and if you do you are excommunicated.
This guy is a professor with his own reputation and titles and achievements and he was powerless. Now imagine an undergrad or a grad student just trying to get by.
You tell yourself you're just going along to get by -- but you get stuck in the feedback loop he mentions. You're just a trained seal performing tricks for cold fish.
It sucks your soul out a little, day by day. And before long, you find you aren't faking anymore... or you have no incentive to ever stop.
but it definitely seems to be a “have my cake and eat it too” moment.
I have the same feeling. The paper he wanted to publish would've been scope bloat imho. Something Nature usually rejects.
Not only did he want to write about how climate change affects wild fires. But then also add in stuff about how forestation methods could be used to prevent wild fires and/or lessen their effect. That's basically two topics, not one. So he would need to write two papers instead.
Academia would even applaud him, cause he now suddenly published two papers which is better for academic rankings.
Michael Crichton talked about it in his book Congo. They claimed ape research would help in fighting cancer. Did it? No, but the investors and publishers all wanted it to, so it did. The book was released in 1980.
Crichton called this stuff out on multiple occasions. I'll bring in Richard Feynman as well, with his cargo cult of science speech from 74.
Most "scientists" aren't scientists anymore, they're aspiring to be priests.
People forget that Michael Crichton had an actual PhD in medicine(even though he was technically not a practicing medical doctor, he still did the necessary internships). And alot of his early stuff was just pure medical drama effectively calling out alot of medical 'god complexes' where doctor's could do no wrong.
He was effectively calling out the bullshit from inside the room, so to speak.
I loved six patients. Not only did it show the medical world really well, it showed how the medical world tried to stop progress of ideas.
And they might have killed him for it.
Now we need people to understand that this happens throughout academia. You aren't allowed to question certain tenets and if you do you are excommunicated.
This guy is a professor with his own reputation and titles and achievements and he was powerless. Now imagine an undergrad or a grad student just trying to get by.
You tell yourself you're just going along to get by -- but you get stuck in the feedback loop he mentions. You're just a trained seal performing tricks for cold fish.
It sucks your soul out a little, day by day. And before long, you find you aren't faking anymore... or you have no incentive to ever stop.
I have the same feeling. The paper he wanted to publish would've been scope bloat imho. Something Nature usually rejects.
Not only did he want to write about how climate change affects wild fires. But then also add in stuff about how forestation methods could be used to prevent wild fires and/or lessen their effect. That's basically two topics, not one. So he would need to write two papers instead.
Academia would even applaud him, cause he now suddenly published two papers which is better for academic rankings.
Trust the soyence.
Has there been ANY papers that support leftist policy that HASN'T been cooked, massaged or fiddled with to make their solution the only way forward?
No surprise. Now how do we undo a generation of young people who’ve been brainwashed
Another hero joins the Sokal club.
Inb4 "It's unethical human experimentation to expose how full of shit we are!" like they said with Sokal, Boghossian & Pluckrose, etc...
Coming soon: Climate change increases murder rate!
Because the murder rate is going up, climate change is going up, therefore it MUST be climate change!
They move at the "Speed Of Science" don't you remember?