Comment by MrBuddyCasino
9 hours ago
This is a straw-man if I ever saw one.
Practically no one is against hard science research, properly conducted. The issues are rampant fraud / p-hacking / unreproducible garbage mixed with an unhealthy dose of ideological monoculture and indoctrination, garnished with rising tuition prices while sitting on huge endowments in case of the Ivy Leagues.
> Practically no one is against hard science research, properly conducted
Eh, I grew up conservative evangelical, and they were pretty much always going to have a problem with research in evolution and astronomy. Same goes for the fossil fuel industry w.r.t. climate science.
When the scientific evidence interferes with religious doctrine or industrial paycheck, then yeah, folks are still going to have a problem with hard science research.
> Practically no one is against hard science research, properly conducted.
As long as you do that with your own money (or money got freely given from other people), sure.
If you use taxpayer money, that's a different game.
There is a long list of grievances I have regarding the (mis-) use of taxpayer money, and funding the hard sciences is way, way down. I can’t even see it from where I stand.
Yes all good points showing issues that academia has at the moment.
However I often see this going from "there's issues" to discounting academia altogether and positioning private labs as a good or only alternative.
After all, most people in the open science collaboration which published the seminal paper kicking off the replication crisis were from academia.
Yes there is no substitute for academia. Monopolist's research labs get close (Bell Labs etc), but they tend to be more "applied".