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.
I don’t know how to feel about this author. It’s not a bad article, but it definitely seems to be a “have my cake and eat it too” moment. The whole thing talks about how climate change is totally real and bad, but all the selection pressures on research prevent someone from being able to present evidence to the contrary, and it’s very bad that people are sacrificing accuracy and good information for prestige, and also, that’s exactly what I just did.
This quote is my favorite:
I left academia over a year ago, partially because I felt the pressures put on academic scientists caused too much of the research to be distorted. Now, as a member of a private nonprofit research center, The Breakthrough Institute, I feel much less pressure to mold my research to the preferences of prominent journal editors and the rest of the field.
Except, again, this entire article is about how he just did exactly that. But don’t worry, he still stands by his paper!
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.
It wouldn’t be scope bloat to say “by the way, bad forest management and arson are at least as much of a problem as climate change.” It would be merely truthful. But, despite admitting that in the article, the author says he deliberately chose not to say that, and then argues that it’s totally understandable and not at all undercutting his alleged principles that he did so.
So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires either accidentally or purposely. (A startling fact: over 80 percent of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans.)
In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did. But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.
“I committed the same exact lie I’m bemoaning, but I’m one of the good ones because I whined about it afterward! You can totally trust me when I say that climate change is real and bad, even though I admit that I, even while acknowledging the error in doing so, ‘didn’t bother to study’ other potential causes of the issue I’m attributing to climate change!”
If this guy is the standard for climate scientist that’s unusually honest and open to alternative hypotheses, imagine what the others are like.
Confirming what we already knew, that warmistas control all research funding, all journals, and allow no heresy.
They move at the "Speed Of Science" don't you remember?
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 don’t know how to feel about this author. It’s not a bad article, but it definitely seems to be a “have my cake and eat it too” moment. The whole thing talks about how climate change is totally real and bad, but all the selection pressures on research prevent someone from being able to present evidence to the contrary, and it’s very bad that people are sacrificing accuracy and good information for prestige, and also, that’s exactly what I just did.
This quote is my favorite:
Except, again, this entire article is about how he just did exactly that. But don’t worry, he still stands by his paper!
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.
It wouldn’t be scope bloat to say “by the way, bad forest management and arson are at least as much of a problem as climate change.” It would be merely truthful. But, despite admitting that in the article, the author says he deliberately chose not to say that, and then argues that it’s totally understandable and not at all undercutting his alleged principles that he did so.
“I committed the same exact lie I’m bemoaning, but I’m one of the good ones because I whined about it afterward! You can totally trust me when I say that climate change is real and bad, even though I admit that I, even while acknowledging the error in doing so, ‘didn’t bother to study’ other potential causes of the issue I’m attributing to climate change!”
If this guy is the standard for climate scientist that’s unusually honest and open to alternative hypotheses, imagine what the others are like.
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!