kestonis

It is very easy - all interviews, opinions, public speeches by all scientists are under "non scientific opinion". Only scientific articles on reputable scientific journals are scientific opinion. All other media is not, because even if you link your speech to specific article and you speak with journalist you use dumbed down terminology. During process of converting scientific article into layman terms there is loss of information. Sometimes it is crucial information or it becomes source of misinterpretation.

Well it is very easy to check consensus view of science - it is published scientific articles. Why it is consensus view? Because it is peer reviewed and different journals have different reputation ranks. In scientific debate you always link the source - scientific article. If he cannot link sources, means there is no need to understand either “what is driving Levitt”, either “what is Levitt’s reasoning?”

Twitter is another form of public speech, like interviews, public lectures, etc. Scientists always were accountable for re-interpretations of their lectures, public speeches. Why it should change on twitter?

Could not agree more. If you see into most big discoveries, fundamentals were laid 50-70 years ago. F.e. math for string theory (twistor space) was in 1960s while theory itself gained traction in 1990s. Todays the new math developed under premise of string theory might be fundamental for future theories coming 50 year later, even if string theory would be proven wrong

well when you are at professors level, then it is not only about yourself. Especially in physics with you have small teams, some grad students what are under your wing. Their livelihood and career depends on you. And some of them are newlyweds with baby incoming. So then comes human factor.

Though how big institutes work i do not know.

I recommend "Everything is Now" by Bill Spence. It delves a bit deeper but you do not need knowledge in the field.

It did.

In book "Everything is Now" by Bill Spence writes that research in string theory led to developing new mathematics which led to helping to manage data in hadron collider which led to detecting Higgs boson. It is not direct cause and effect correlation but it helped with due process.

>String theory, and the 'reproducability problem'

I do not know what is your experience with science, but it is not how it works. In most cases research leads to unexpected results in grand scale. F.e. Research in string theory field led to developing new mathematics which eventually helped to calculate particle paths in LHS, which helped to make gathering data manageable and which lead to discovering Higgs boson.

>most socially unaware people (often science)

99% successful scientists are very socially aware. Usually socially unaware people do not become successful even in science.

>social artifacts can dominate their sphere

Because thats how world works. F.e. phd student does his own research, then he consults with his professor, who suggests how to add marketable layer to his research and with that layer his research becomes one for string theorists, though it was not his initial goal. This marketable layer helps him get the grant.

>Now, the existential issue of the fact that their 'entire worldview' and 'life-long work' is tied up in something, delusions can become very strongly internalized.

This is made by popular media, movies. Most scientists live normal life, create families, try separate work from life, therefore research does not come from worldview.