Time for the 'marketplace of ideas' to address this problem by starting another publication that actually values rigor, repeatability and honest peer review. With today's web-based platforms like Substack, the barrier to entry is pretty low, and the market for honest scientific papers is wildly under-served.
Within my lifetime, I saw funding at USDA intentionally transferred from a program in which research users had a role in determining topics for research to scientists determining it via research panels (supposedly better because the research was “peer reviewed”) in reality, it just transferred decision authority to scientists themselves, who wanted to be cool and publish in eminent journals, even if it never helped any particular human beings. Congress realized this and passed the Fund for Rural America which was supposed to do that.. we actually allowed a few users on research panels. This got some people upset, and at the end the head of the program was fired and we were asked to call the PIs and retract their grants. I left the agency at that time, that was one of the worst experiences of doing something painful to the PIs for no apparent reason except internal politics. Now even Congress, I think, has given up. Patrick has only exposed the tip of the iceberg. Funding of the scientists, by the scientists and for the scientists, indeed!
It seems like there is no healthy appreciation for Paul Feyerabend's concept of "provisional knowledge." I think this was particularly true through the development of the Covid pandemic, when complaints were registered because scientific opinions changed. With the pushing of Big Data and claims of understanding what that data demonstrates, scientific hubris seems to be getting worse and outrage over the development (and finetuning) of scientific understanding seems to be ever intensifying. This is why everyone should have to study the history of science (and medicine, my area of interest) - to learn that not everything trail leads to the best final conclusion, i.e. sometimes scientists (and doctors) are wrong, but we will never know everything. (Job 38:4 - “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.")
Nice piece and totally expected. Science has been overtaken by the same forces that underlie social science. Credulity, lack of intellectual rigor and politics have doomed real science as is published. The good work being done is all tucked away inside labs and studies that no one cares about.
Acknowledging error is healthy! I remembered Feyerabend, but Paul Teller was the author I was intending to refer to. My apologies for writing without a quick Google search to confirm
That’s exactly what we’ve seen with financial model too. Particularly the Levelized Cost of Energy which is used to claim wind energy is cheap. When you study the assumptions and the fine print, they’re only cheap if you ignore the expense parts. But at least it creates headlines.
Time for the 'marketplace of ideas' to address this problem by starting another publication that actually values rigor, repeatability and honest peer review. With today's web-based platforms like Substack, the barrier to entry is pretty low, and the market for honest scientific papers is wildly under-served.
Within my lifetime, I saw funding at USDA intentionally transferred from a program in which research users had a role in determining topics for research to scientists determining it via research panels (supposedly better because the research was “peer reviewed”) in reality, it just transferred decision authority to scientists themselves, who wanted to be cool and publish in eminent journals, even if it never helped any particular human beings. Congress realized this and passed the Fund for Rural America which was supposed to do that.. we actually allowed a few users on research panels. This got some people upset, and at the end the head of the program was fired and we were asked to call the PIs and retract their grants. I left the agency at that time, that was one of the worst experiences of doing something painful to the PIs for no apparent reason except internal politics. Now even Congress, I think, has given up. Patrick has only exposed the tip of the iceberg. Funding of the scientists, by the scientists and for the scientists, indeed!
Follow the science all the way to the bank...
It seems like there is no healthy appreciation for Paul Feyerabend's concept of "provisional knowledge." I think this was particularly true through the development of the Covid pandemic, when complaints were registered because scientific opinions changed. With the pushing of Big Data and claims of understanding what that data demonstrates, scientific hubris seems to be getting worse and outrage over the development (and finetuning) of scientific understanding seems to be ever intensifying. This is why everyone should have to study the history of science (and medicine, my area of interest) - to learn that not everything trail leads to the best final conclusion, i.e. sometimes scientists (and doctors) are wrong, but we will never know everything. (Job 38:4 - “Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.")
Nice piece and totally expected. Science has been overtaken by the same forces that underlie social science. Credulity, lack of intellectual rigor and politics have doomed real science as is published. The good work being done is all tucked away inside labs and studies that no one cares about.
Acknowledging error is healthy! I remembered Feyerabend, but Paul Teller was the author I was intending to refer to. My apologies for writing without a quick Google search to confirm
Peer review: the last refuge of scoundrels and the last line of defense of the entrenched.
Outstanding essay. Thank you. There is obviously a problem, but what is the solution?
Wow...I'm going to have sit on this for awhile and then reread. There is a lot here.
Is knowledge produced or is it discovered? Thinking through that question could be clarifying.
That’s exactly what we’ve seen with financial model too. Particularly the Levelized Cost of Energy which is used to claim wind energy is cheap. When you study the assumptions and the fine print, they’re only cheap if you ignore the expense parts. But at least it creates headlines.
What do you think about this: https://youtu.be/dXZUXQPqY3k?si=knWHbjNv9hMWUVbj