“It really does matter. Even the stupid pizza papers matter because they set the tone, they contribute to establishing a view of “what science is” that is pathological, and that matters.”
I agree with this completely.
I’ve seen a variety of estimates on this, and I’m not sure it summarises neatly. However, I did mean the direct cost, not the other bits and pieces they put into the pipeline cost.
I have no insight, though, into the really very worrying assertion that it takes *20* not 10 years for approval. Got a reference?
I’m here to be hated. You wouldn’t be the first one.
Honestly: that was on my mind, to a small degree. But imagine it wasn’t just a funny Excel error. Imagine it was a serious pattern of results over years rather than a single screwup. Imagine you set, or backed up, or bolstered such a thing as the monetary policy of a whole…
I have no problem with the above, as long as it doesn’t get lexically wrapped up in ‘critical theory’, in which case I would prefer to be associated with literally anything else.
A journal would help codify this: I could see a lot of very useful studies in a journal simply called “Scientific Criticism”.
Oh yes, they definitely do. I spend most of my days on things which are entirely more complicated. It’s just that this is new… REALLY new. We are in many ways starting from scratch, to see what we can see. It will get more sophisticated over time (I hope).