He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often.
And if what you say is the case, you present a stronger reason for skepticism of scientific claim than mere pattern recognition.
The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. Walking in other people's shoes seems to be something many in the world have trouble doing.
I know I've certainly met some quite militant science folks who think everyone who doesn't vehemently believe in the latest scientific concept is an idiot because p < 0.05. That kind of attitude wins no hearts and changes no minds of the "non believers".
> He mentions privately funded scientific ventures being fudged often.
He does it in a hand-wavy fashion. Its not that science is in the wrong, its the system that is at fault. What is perhaps needed is to get influence of money out of research as in with politics. Also perhaps more rigorous peer reviewed papers and penalties for the media if they state rejected/falsified theories as accepted ones.
> The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints.
The alternate viewpoint is the inability of humans to grasp large scales of time, space and complexity. For example Global Warming had to be renamed as Climate Change because many people took the science as faulty at the first sign of plummeting temperatures at their location. Same can be said regarding the arguments about evolution.
Weather predictions is a science which is often mocked because in general people didn't understand the complexity of it. I was one of them. A prediction of 40% rain on the next weekend which didn't materialize doesn't put the science at fault, it just means the model requires a few more cycles of evolution.
And if what you say is the case, you present a stronger reason for skepticism of scientific claim than mere pattern recognition.
The piece is certainly sensationalist but it presents a valid point and tries to offer a view of understanding of alternative viewpoints. Walking in other people's shoes seems to be something many in the world have trouble doing.
I know I've certainly met some quite militant science folks who think everyone who doesn't vehemently believe in the latest scientific concept is an idiot because p < 0.05. That kind of attitude wins no hearts and changes no minds of the "non believers".