4. I've worried for years that by promoting a science-in-crisis narrative, the metascience / science reform movement runs the risk of playing useful idiot to those who would like to reduce the influence of science in policy and regulation. Just look at the funding pouring in from Koch, Arnold, etc.
Comments
The metascience community could tout this as a win and fundraise off of it, cementing their legacy as useful idiots.
Or they can side with science, boldly speaking out about the bad-faith ways the Trump administration is co-opting their language and momentum.
Section 4(e) - "Highly Unlikely" Scenarios:
This provision appears designed to exclude precautionary analysis from policy-making.
1/
2/
3/
- Chill climate research
- Weaken environmental protections
- Politicize public health
- Create compliance costs that burden academic and government researchers
- Enable cherry-picking of studies that support predetermined policy outcomes
4/4
https://substack.com/@jonathanrob1985/p-162028815
that sound useful !
can you manufacture stupid??....
(rhetorical)
https://bsky.app/profile/partickle.bsky.social/post/3lmiybnera22g
https://bsky.app/profile/shematologist.medsky.social/post/3lmkufc5f2s2u
Most scientists have no idea how bad things are in top-down EBM right now - it's complete pseudoscience.
In turn, this means 👉subject matter experts are...
Worse, the evidence synthesis processes are completely subjective...
It's a small group of cherry-picked cherry-pickers, giving their personal opinions on what evidence counts, starting with bizarre rankings that exclude 99% of science.
🧵:
Powered by @skywriter.blue