Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
How so in the science one? I remember feeling like he left some important info out that could have been presented alongside the negatives to give a more realistic representation of the massive field.
|
If I remember correctly, he just kind of grazed p-hacking and barely mentioned the bias present in peer review, and didn't really get to how the tenure system causes biased writing, review, and publication of results, how journals rely on p-values to determine whether to publish results (despite the fact that most scientists even misunderstand what they're for).
He didn't get to how the funding for grants is determined in a biased manner, and that same funding is drying up every year, so certain types of studies which provide really valuable information but take longer to perform aren't getting done. He didn't talk about the importance of replication studies or why nobody in science does them, or how in social science, a shocking number of studies aren't replicating but are still treated and disseminated as fact.
He also didn't get to the very human problems in science--not just biased writing and peer review processes, but a competitive structure that has its students (undergrad through post-doc) working progressively longer hours for progressively lower wages, which is resulting in a very real burnout problem and high rates of depression/anxiety in its researchers at every level.
And then there are the issues with knowledge translation and informing the public--academics generally make no effort at all to inform the public, only other academics (because your tenure, publication status, and grants are in part based on how frequently other researchers cite your work), so valuable information about, for instance, whether or not culturally-adapted health services are any more effective than the normal ones never makes it to the public, to policymakers, or practitioners, and then those people continue to funnel millions of dollars into programs that do not clearly work. Further, we leave it up to journalists (with less experience in technical jargon and the scientific method) to report our findings, and that results in catastrophic misunderstandings and bull**** like "eating chocolate will kill your baby" or "if you read a book a day you'll live ten years longer".
And all of these problems contribute to the biggest problem of all: Science is rigorous in theory, but not in practice, and
we can't trust it just because it's science.