According to 270 scientists From Vox:
Scientists often learn more from studies that fail. But failed studies can mean career death. So instead, they’re incentivized to generate positive results they can publish. And the phrase “publish or perish” hangs over nearly every decision. It’s a nagging whisper, like a Jedi’s path to the dark side.
“Over time the most successful people will be those who can best exploit the system,” Paul Smaldino, a cognitive science professor at University of California Merced, says.
To Smaldino, the selection pressures in science have favored less-than-ideal research: “As long as things like publication quantity, and publishing flashy results in fancy journals are incentivized, and people who can do that are rewarded … they’ll be successful, and pass on their successful methods to others.” More.
Funny. We’ve always been told that “selection pressures” (Darwinism) leads to stuff like the origin of life and of the mind.
Is it possible that what doesn’t actually work IS the naturalism part (nature is all there is)?
Why is it illegitimate to discuss that?
Some of us think that the war on falsifiability (to protect naturalism) will end by dissolving science altogether.
Not that the current high science schmumpkins can do much to prevent that dissolution. They can’t even convene a decent meeting on rethinking evolution
See also: Peer review unscientific? Tough words from Nature
Follow UD News at Twitter!