And science is not supposed to be immune to this, the culture of science is supposed to uncover things like this/errors like this as part of a process. The truth has a habit of shining through if you are encouraged to keep asking questions and follow up on them.
And again, not saying the system is perfect or that calling things out is enough. But too often comments like this get turned anti-science or "we can't improve anything, slow decay is inevitable" cynicism (or FUD if you want to be less charitable)
After decades. The only reason there is a "scandal" is because it is medical. There is shit like this in almost every scientific field holding back progress.
It sounds like what science needs then is a cultural shift to supporting and funding more controversial ideas, and being more content with dissent. Maybe we need to make a more intentional effort to fund the contrarians with the understanding that maybe they're dead wrong, but maybe giving them some ammunition will give us a head start down the correct path.
The US built the atom bomb so fast because we tried multiple approaches at once. We should approach basic science the same way. (In fact, writing that is seems obvious, because I guess I assume science is "supposed" to work that way anyway.)
Also, I dislike the idea that science doesn't like controversial ideas or dissent. Yes there is group think, yes there are cabals, but in general, if you find weird results, you publish and they get discussed. What else do people want to come out of the proposal controversial ideas? Controversial doesn't make it automatically good
Otherwise, your comment reads to me "you have to be careful with this racist euphemism, it can refer to two different attempts of racist pseudoscience trying to appear legit"
In an earlier submission I made, Peter Thiel, etc discuss how global research is changing in general:
“Eton-nationalism” is what we have in the UK at the moment.
I would say that the latest Alzheimer's drug failure finally broke the camel's back. While NIH will tolerate groupthink indefinitely, biopharma eventually wants a payback.
I suspect biopharma pulling funding and causing the amyloid people to suddenly lose clout is more to blame for the come-to-Jesus party in Alzheimer's land.
The situation isn't even close, low-fat diets are an example of how science is distorted by evil and money without a care for the lives of millions.
I think your list needs to have religion and political game theory on it as well.
I wish it was exclusive, but it just isn't. There's ego, prestige, institutions, social arrangement, capital structures... The practice of science is the cleanest practice we've found but its quest for truth hasn't fully escaped the influence of these things.
There may be a way to structure the finances, work, and collaboration to escape these things through some new kind of institutional approach, but it's just not there yet.
Compare science to its predecessors, such as witchcraft and magic (ex: a medicinal herb would have been called magic for centuries). Look at zoology's predecessor, bestiary studies, wherein sea monsters, unicorns, and a giraffe were considered in the same class of anecdotal creatures. Psychology works far better than its predecessors as well, astrology and exorcisms.
Science is a far better approach then these things but there's still work left to do. We're not at the end of history but instead are tasked with moving it forward.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth."
Oh did not know that. Do you have reference material?
The website initially may look like yet another diet approach, but this is actually a serious publication. And a good read.
> Teicholz' claims were harshly criticized by the DGAC, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and others, including a petition signed by 180 scientists, and they called for the BMJ to retract the article or issue corrections.[11][13][16][19][20] The BMJ issued a correction in October 2015 and another in December 2016, the latter with a statement that after an independent review of the paper, it had decided not to retract it.[21][22][23][24]
> Meanwhile, the Arnold Foundation had been pressing for Congressional hearings about the DGAC report and attempted to block the release of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans; its lobbying group arranged meetings for Teicholz with members of Congress and White House staff.[11][13] Teicholz and the Foundation were criticized at the time for being allies of the meat and dairy industries in their lobbying and other public relations efforts to maintain high levels of meat and dairy consumption by US consumers.[25][26]
Then it becomes like so many topics these days: when people (I don't mean you anewvillager) throw enough counter arguments - true or not - distinguishing the truths becomes harder and harder, certainly for the population at large, not so well versed in the subject.
[BTW: I have no affiliations whatsoever with the author or the books, other than that I read it]
Just like every other food paper quoted in the press.
There has never been evidence that fats were bad, as such, just meat as produced in the US, and sugar. But no one was allowed to say so.
It's interesting that Keys, credited with discovering the Mediterranean Diet, died at the age of 101.
Seriously Keys work is garbage. Where the publicly unknown Kummerow's research was spot on. If you don't know who Kummerow is he's the guy that finally forced the FDA to ban transfats decades after they were known to be poison.
I don't remember ever being modded down here by challenging some GW related assumption.
But if people come just generally stating that GW is based on group thinking, with no scope or analysis of what they disagree, they do get modded down, as they should.