|
|
|
|
|
by eli_gottlieb
3204 days ago
|
|
Well, the problem is that people so often go motte-and-bailey on it. Motte: all the valid critiques of how institutional science works, all of which are well-known. Bailey: full Paul Ryanism, cut the NSF and NIH to the fucking bone and tell scientists to go get "real jobs" in industry. Subject academics to yet more administration and reporting requirements that further incentivize bad science and just generally make everyone miserable. We'd all be less tetchy about the motte if it wasn't used as an excuse for the bailey. |
|
I am perfectly happy to admit that institutional science is screwed up - really bad. Scientific texts are often un-readable, and the entire community has major systemic issues. But I react incredibly poorly to the opinion that scientists enjoy this system or even benefit from it. We hate the way academia is structured. It's just that no one can figure out anything better and the benefits for enough people are important enough that swaying them is incredibly difficult.