The real problem with science is the same as in politics.
We, the other scientists (just like the voters) incentivize certain behaviors and with that favor a certain type of scientists (and politician) to prosper.
There are all kinds of scientists (and politicians) competing for your trust (and votes). There are good and bad among them. As long as we reward the bullshitters more, they are the ones that will outcompete the others.
All these rules and regulations that people propose are ineffectual, as long as a certain level of self-criticism is not being applied:
- Stop believing and propagating the bullshit even if it seems to support your preconceived notions (or even the truth). This is very hard to do in practice.
As sad as it sounds: the greatest enemy of good science are the other scientists.
feels like some sort of prisoners's dilemma, it only works if all do it, otherwise, it is best to just not admit anything
A different framing of this is that politics is, more and more, intruding into science.
Paul Romer:
> Politics does not lead to a broadly shared consensus. It has to yield a decision whether or not a consensus prevails. As a result, political institutions create incentives for participants to exaggerate disagreements between factions. Words that are evocative and ambiguous better serve factional interests than words that are analytical and precise.
> Science is a process that does lead to a broadly shared consensus. It is arguably the only social process that does. Consensus forms around theoretical and empirical statements that are true. In making these statements, a combination of words from natural language and tightly linked symbols from the formal language of mathematics encourages the use of words that are analytical and precise.
He also left as World Bank chief economist after he complained that the "Ease of doing Business" index suspiciously went down for Chile while a socialist party was in power.
We, the other scientists (just like the voters) incentivize certain behaviors and with that favor a certain type of scientists (and politician) to prosper.
There are all kinds of scientists (and politicians) competing for your trust (and votes). There are good and bad among them. As long as we reward the bullshitters more, they are the ones that will outcompete the others.
All these rules and regulations that people propose are ineffectual, as long as a certain level of self-criticism is not being applied:
- Stop believing and propagating the bullshit even if it seems to support your preconceived notions (or even the truth). This is very hard to do in practice.
As sad as it sounds: the greatest enemy of good science are the other scientists.
feels like some sort of prisoners's dilemma, it only works if all do it, otherwise, it is best to just not admit anything