[doitLP]

It’s absolutely how a dishonest science institution functions. Science itself is nothing more than a method. The disdain is for people who confuse the process with the institution. And at that point it is just blind faith like any old religion. Show me the preregistration, the conflict of interest disclosure and the third party replication and then I’ll “trust the science”.

[adam_smith123]

PEOPLE are abusing bad incentives. I'm quite certain that if this lab was exposed for doing what the poster claims it would be a major controversy just like other cases we've seen. That's the institution correctly reacting to bad actors.

[mistermann]

Are these bad actors scientists, or not?

[adam_smith123]

How is this relevant? Do these people define what science or is it an established set of principles and methods? You think scientists are the only ones who can do science and what they do, wrong or not, defines what science is??

[mistermann]

> How is this relevant?

The topic is related to the quality of science. Science is composed of scientists.

>Do these people define what science or is it an established set of principles and methods?

Science is defined by the actions and output of the entire system.

Perceptions of science, your beliefs (perceived as knowledge) are affected by how scientists (and their fan base) define "it".

> You think scientists are the only ones who can do science

No.

> and what they do, wrong or not, defines what science is??

Yes. If you think otherwise, I would really like you to walk me through your reasoning.