| None of the things you listed are bad or failures of academia. 1) Yeah, lots of people missed the crisis. 2) Yes, when funding doesn't come from the government it comes from industry. And then you need to find hypotheses that are interesting for industry. 3) That's how science works! You don't know what is true or false. You need to take your shot, see if the experiment you run works out. Sometimes you can be the smartest person in the world, put in the most work, but be in an area asking a question that doesn't pan out. It happens! There are many ways to mitigate this. For example, you can often make experiments where it doesn't matter what the answer is. It's always interesting and publishable regardless of how the statistics work out. But, there is definitely luck involved, not just skill. > Only a true saint would accept data that actually does NOT support their hypothesis because it makes it unlikely they will get a job in a very competitive market. Only a scientist would! That's the game we play to discover new truths. And the vast majority of scientists do this. Pretty much every idea that I have ever had is bad! Yet, somehow, I managed to get a PhD and now graduate many of my own PhD students. The trick is to learn to fail quickly, to ask the kinds of questions that are interesting no matter what, and to develop a sense for the types of questions that are more fertile. |
Your take on the last point is not so different from mine. I think you misunderstood. The incentive to change data to avoid a finding of no significance is very great. The risks are small. Yes, good science would be to report it accurately. It almost NEVER happens. It is widespread. More so than people think. These two dishonesty researchers are just the tip. A lot of people in academia are staying silent because they don't want people looking into their own research. False data is not the exception. It is endemic.