[its-summertime]

I think it'd be a bit easier to care what is being talked about if it didn't involve spitting vitriol at every involved and uninvolved.

I don't know how people can acknowledge that there is problems around the act of performing science, like suppression of results, P hacking, poor sample sizes, poor sampling, not correctly blinding trials, not handling other conflicting factors correctly, the replication crisis, having to note conflict of interest, etc, bringing into question a far chunk of conclusions. But as soon as one says that that might cause an issue with areas that modern forms of science rarely touch on, (e.g. race), suddenly science is pure, 100% factual, based completely on indisputable evidence, and only idiots ever question the science!

[nhchris]

> there is problems around the act of performing science, like suppression of results, P hacking, poor sample sizes, poor sampling...

The policy the article talks about addresses none of these issues.