The modern disdain for science is in large part fueled by a vast and all-encompassing conflict of…
Benjamin T. Awesome

Just a few more nuanced clarifications:

The modern disdain for science is in large part fueled by a vast and all-encompassing conflict of interest derived from the merger of science and corporatism.

That is overexaggerated. There are plenty of people who have no stake anywhere and produce good science. Look no further than most hard sciences.

Furthermore, scientists are obliged to subjugate themself to conflict-of-interest statements of everything they publish, additionally scientists are among the most aware part of any subset of human populations who are trained to recognize their own cognitive biases and try to minimize them.

Obviously, monied interest generate a very abstruse incentive structure for scientists, where less ethical or rightout unethical “scientists” get ahead publication-wise, money-wise and career-wise for not being rigorous. Basically, the current monied incentive system opens the doors for cheaters while punishing careful researchers. That is indeed a huge problem.

Studies are funded by monied interests. Scientists do not report or publish vast numbers of studies with results that contradict a narrative they have been paid to push, but do publish those that confirm what their backers want confirmed. Most studies these days cannot be replicated, and there is little impetus for scientists to even try

Again, most scientists do not get paid to push a narrative, but a subset of people in science (cheaters) who know how to push a narrative get rewarded by monied interest. Plenty of scientists purposefully push against narratives where they feel the data do not support the conclusion, and scientific cheaters are always exposed by scientific peers who try to reproduce what they were claiming and fail to do so.

Also, “most studies can not be replicated” is also an over exaggeration and unfair to so many domains of science that are highly reproducible. There are in fact hard numbers for the subfields of how much can be produced. Furthermore, there is huge impetus for scientists to try to be as reproducible as possible, from scientific associations, major journals and institutions. The only problem is the monied interests, who do not support of culture of science where reproduction & validation of findings are rewarded. No, what is rewarded is novel and sexy science fiction, or politically-loaded bullshit, because it makes for good headlines.

This is not the fault of science as a discipline or of the scientific method as a means of garnering knowledge. It is simply an inevitable consequence of scientific truth being at odds with the agendas of powerful interests.

Yes. This has always been the case since the inception of science. Religions, ideologies, governments and now big money all tried and try to restrict, control and abuse science for their agendas. Because science is important and powerful.

Good luck convincing people to believe science or scientists when billions of dollars of money have corrupted those scientists and have been used to wage war on science, itself.

Again, as a quite junior scientist, I know that most of my peers are neither corrupted by money or in science for the money. Scientists make aggressively little money for their commitment, work hours and intellectual capacities. We are in it because we are curious, or want to solve a problem that can help us and others in the future. We sacrifice for that.

All we want in return is not being demonized and ostracized, just some support and goodwill from the public. And, if possible, change the incentive structure so the cheaters do not get rewarded and pushed up the ladder, while we drop out because our research is not pleasant or sexy for the powerful.

In the end, science works. We do not want you to belief, we want you to take a closer look.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.