In that regard I always admired Eliezer Yudkowsky's idea of working to become "less wrong" as you progress. It kind of sums that up perfectly.

We haven't got it all figured out yet, but we're less wrong than we used to be.

Or before Yudkowsky, Asimov's idea of "the relativity of wrong":

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...

"Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete."

That link omits some parts of the essay. Complete version here: http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html

> Science is about hypothesis, iteration, and testing

Maybe in the past. Today science is about getting grants, publishing as much as possible even if the paper is trivial or you p-hacked your way to heaven.

It's also about finding a niche where there is no competition so that you can build a name for yourself. If any sort of competition appears, quickly run away to a more fertile ground (see the recent article about DeepMind and protein folding)

You're talking about science, the industry. I believe the person to whom you responded is talking about science, the school subject.

Actually it's materially important. To think the politics of science doesn't impact what results come out of the scientific industrial complex is a view sharply divorced from reality.

Politics is a deep vein that runs through absolutely everything and it has a big impact and oftentimes it's not obvious what the impact is.

Science is as much about the politics of science as it is about an empirical quest to find the truth.

Look at the history of Bayes Theorem as a relatively good example.

Even in science ideas don't win purely on merit. They require marketing and political support too.

Maybe the comment had it's wires crossed a little but still it's a valuable thing for people to keep in mind.

Agreed. And politics should always be minimized so we get less of this:

>Even in science ideas don't win purely on merit. They require marketing and political support too.

Ideally the world would be a meritocratic place, while still offering both sympathy and dignity to the weakest members. Does anyone disagree with that? But still, politics and cheating always weasel their way into power structures of society. And it should be seen as morally reprehensible within science.