Maybe that naked emperor wouldn't have been voted in where science not already in crisis before he appeared on the screen. A crisis of results, a crisis of ideological utopism, a crisis of denial of uncomfortable realities, a crisis of an elite so detached from the on the ground physics and social reality that they couldnt even predict their own downfall by tribalist regressors. Remember doubt in the social fiction is heresy! I m evil ..
Almost all of these don't apply to diabetes science. Its just the unfortunate nature of the average populace collapsing the complicated nature of scientific work and real human issues into problems that affect "science". Also, bad actors that want to twist the uncertainity of certain scientific areas into fake news.
> own downfall by tribalist regressors.<p>As an outsider, it’s not clear to me who you are referring to as <i>tribalist regressors</i> here.<p>Would you mind clarifying?
Are you talking about science, or politics? I don't think any of this applies to diabetes research.
Nah. Science was not in such crises.<p>It is literally people who want to deny uncomfortable realities that are attacking and destroying it now. The ideological anti reality issue is in the side of Trump voters.<p>Also, funny enough, people who were correctly predicting what conservatives will do were called out of touch by people like you. Quite a few of them were actually social scientists and yes they have seen it.
Right, science, while not perfect (being a human endeavor), is our best mechanism for getting closer to the truth. Sure, fraud happens (occasionally). Not all "results" are a step forward. But the system is inherently self correcting. The problem is the politicization of science funding when scientific results don't fit into a dogma driven view of the world.
> social scientists<p>There really isn’t such a thing.<p>The social sciences are the prototypical case of trying to measure something having an effect on the thing being measured.<p>Ask a geologist about climate, they are the original climate scientist. Modern <i>climate science</i> isn’t science, it’s Climatism.<p>Try getting funding for climate science research that questions the status quo.
The causal loop you mentioned makes social science hard, but I’d argue that falsification and hypothesis-driven research can still work. Otherwise all the behavioral targeting Meta and Google and co are doing would not work.
I have no idea what you are babbling about. Sure, the evolution of the climate is recorded in the geological record. Climate scientists largely understand why these geological timescale events happened. What we are now undergoing is orders-of-magnitude faster than any geologically recorded event. Except for catastrophic events like meteorite impacts and mega-vulcanism there has never been such a rapid change. And climate scientists understand why. Look in the mirror. It is us.