Bjorn LomborgVarmennettu tili

The modern classic, again: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 …

For psychology, it is actually getting better (not worse). I think it seems this way because they only just became aware how bad it really was all along. Many are working hard to improve.

Not that science is of poor quality but "our expectations... are themselves irrational. We are asking science to do the impossible: to arrive at scientifically coherent and politically unifying understandings of problems that are inherently open, indeterminate and contested".

It depends what 'science' means. If 'science' means _science_, then no. If it means 'memorising a set of (politically correct) conclusions', then yes.

I'm only a tech, but when I started working in clinical research I was shocked at how much data was tossed because the PI didn't like it.

Agree. It is chilling to read in Adam Becker’s “What Is Real? The Unfinished Quest for the Meaning of Quantum Physics” how Niels Bohr was able to crush the careers of John Bell, David Bohm, Hugh Everett, John Clauser and others who challenged him. They were right. He was wrong.

I think he just does not understand the difference between science and junk science. We better make sure that the boundary between them remains as sharp as possible...

Actually the last paragraph is much more interesting: the quantity of production is so overwhelming that anyone can cherrypick what suits him to confirm his views or reject someone else’s

Follow the $$$