How long will it take opponents of scientific reform to blame those concerned with poor replication, p hacking, fraud, closed science for trump’s attack on science?
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Or not: imbuing meaning into historical contingencies is fraught historical thinking, to say the least. But here is where we might agree: it is not reasonable to pretend one’s thinking about science can h ore the political moment. (How to take it into account is something people can disagree about.)
People have already blamed science reform for what is happening.
For 15 years I have said: If we do not get our shit together (less publication bias, higher quality, more coordination) someone else is going to implement change top down, and we are not going to like how they do it.
The same can be said for many aspects of government too. Complacency and poor outreach lead to barbarians with a chip on their shoulder causing great damage.
I really really don't think that the guy that fires people for telling him that he cannot just make up the path of a hurricane with a sharpie, needs to appeal to the perils of p-hacking or the issues with peer-review to do stuff.
Not that those would even be good excuses considering what's the plan.
I'm afraid you forgot to turn on your crank-to-human translator: for these people every accusation is an admission.
When you cite *blog posts* with the worst design by known scammers funded by an antivax group as the kind of research to rely on, it means for you "fraud" is just others' disagreement.
Of course, but regardless, (a) it's a real problem, (b) he mentioned it, and (c) nobody else in a similar position of power had previously done so. That ought to shame the (c) people more than anything else could do.
Not at all really? I wasn't being hyperbolic. The words might be the same, but it would be a category mistake to take them at face value.
He for one didn't apply that the slightest (quoting a guy that literally got grift tips from *Wakefield*) and it's the same trolling used for voting fraud claims.
The Heritage club explicitly cited low quality research as a reason to reduce spending, in an attempt to increase market pressures into science to increase the value of work. I am not sure they would have argued this if we had become better organized ourselves over the last 2 decades.
Illogical. Reducing funding doesn't translate to only the good research will be funded.
Also, the goal of reducing gov't funding for science and otherwise has been present for a very long time. These organizations did not come to this view from a rational evaluation of reproducibility debates.
I am not saying their actions will have desired consequences.
But I think they did rationally evaluate the evidence on the state of academia. Their criticism of a too high amount of waste is just true. Their proposed solution might be horribly flawed. But their analysis was not irrational.
The conclusion among think tanks like this has been fixed for decades: defund science, especially social science.
The search for rationalizations to support the fixed conclusion has taken many forms over those decades. Bad faith reasoning with true claims is not rational analysis.
The title of their piece is dumb. But the points they raise are not at all baseless. We can disagree with the idea that market pressure would improve things. But quantity over quality is what we all say! Too much work of little value - that is just correct and have been for 100 years.
I am not quite sure what you mean here. Are you implying that the lack of reform has left the door open to the possibility of bad reforms impacting science, or are you saying that the lack of reforms to promote open science and replicability has motivated Trump/Musk and co?
The Heritage club explicitly cited low quality research as a reason to reduce spending, in an attempt to increase market pressures into science to increase the value of work. I am not sure they would have argued this if we had become better organized ourselves over the last 2 decades.
I think the point here is that a think-tank that has reducing funding for science as one of its goals is going to scavenge for the best arguments they can find to support that conclusion, but if those arguments weren’t available they’d find other ones (perhaps worse ones) because that’s their job.
In the larger US right-wing project the hostility towards science isn’t born from frustration with low quality science. Like they hate mainstream climate science and that stuff is robust on a level us psychologists can only dream of.
Yep and unless you think trump won because of the replication crisis then the fact these cuts are now happening has nothing to do with genuinely concerns about scientific practice.
You're a great quantitative researcher but I don't think you understand how American think tanks work. The conclusion is predetermined. Subsequently they marshal the best arguments they can think of to support it. & it's not just overhead, they're canceling ideologically uncongenial grants.
I admire your scientific work and mission but I am suprised at your judgememt when you are "not sure they would have...". I am sure you understand the roles of ideology and power in politics...your argument is as poor as 'I am not sure she would have been abused if she wore less revealing clothes'
Comments
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/indirect-costs-how-taxpayers-subsidize-university-nonsense
Either way, great time for the community to clarify what they mean by "science" and "wasteful".
For 15 years I have said: If we do not get our shit together (less publication bias, higher quality, more coordination) someone else is going to implement change top down, and we are not going to like how they do it.
And here we are.
Not that those would even be good excuses considering what's the plan.
When you cite *blog posts* with the worst design by known scammers funded by an antivax group as the kind of research to rely on, it means for you "fraud" is just others' disagreement.
He for one didn't apply that the slightest (quoting a guy that literally got grift tips from *Wakefield*) and it's the same trolling used for voting fraud claims.
Also, the goal of reducing gov't funding for science and otherwise has been present for a very long time. These organizations did not come to this view from a rational evaluation of reproducibility debates.
But I think they did rationally evaluate the evidence on the state of academia. Their criticism of a too high amount of waste is just true. Their proposed solution might be horribly flawed. But their analysis was not irrational.
The search for rationalizations to support the fixed conclusion has taken many forms over those decades. Bad faith reasoning with true claims is not rational analysis.