[gosub100]

Science cannot be trusted anymore. Journals don't validate anything they submit. Departments are rewarded by how much money they wring out of the government, not by whether what they say is true. Next week they'll publish another paper about how they were wrong.

Also you don't sound "fascinated", so if you're complaining at least be honest about it. There are many more descriptive words than "fascinated".

[ranger207]

> Next week they'll publish another paper about how they were wrong.

Isn't that what's they're supposed to do? "Hey we found this thing, here's how we did it." Next week: "Yeah I checked your data and got different results, let's figure out what's different." A few months/years later: "We've figured out where the problems were and now have a better understanding of this."

[awesome_dude]

Yeah - people forget that the true advantage science has over other methodologies is that it accepts that what is believed today could be proved wrong tomorrow by new data.

There are no absolutes, we're just formulating theories to best fit what data we have now, and, if new conflicting data (or even existing data that was misunderstood/misread/misclassified as being irrelevant) disproves our theory we formulate a new one to try and account for the extra data.

[smj-edison]

Someone I know put this well: "science is just as gullible at following the latest trends. The difference is it corrects itself, where trends never do."

[awesome_dude]

I like that - and it's true, eventually science will correct itself, even in the face of ridicule from its own stalwarts (eg. the way that Robert Atkins was treated by the scientific community, right up until his theory [which was recycled] was proved with empirical data)

[lz400]

I think this is a real problem but your post is an exaggeration. There are cases of fraud in science. There is a reproducibility crisis in some areas. There are political angles and rent seeking wrt grants. But how widespread is it? You're assuming it's close to 100% without evidence. I don't claim to have the exact number but intuitively yours is extraordinary (so it would need extraordinary evidence). I think these issues affect some areas much more than others and some regions more than others. I still believe science is the best way of enquiry for the natural world.

[gosub100]

I'm not assuming it's close to 100%, I'm countering the GPs criticism of people who are skeptical about the title. He's saying "how dare you question these science experts!?!" And I'm saying the reason people do that is because scandals like LK99 erode the credibility.

[lz400]

I think on average trusting the experts is the right thing. And by the way LK99 is not even particularly damning, as far as we know it was science working as intended

[mmooss]

> Science cannot be trusted anymore. Journals don't validate anything they submit. Departments are rewarded by how much money they wring out of the government, not by whether what they say is true. Next week they'll publish another paper about how they were wrong.

What do you feel when you post that?

[gosub100]

I feel like my tax dollars are wasted and the college students are being lied to with their ever-increasing tuition that somehow promises them a future when their departments are led by liars.

[mmooss]

Those are not emotions. What I meant is (I don't mean to ask twice, I'm just clarifying), what drives these comments? Anger? Hate? Is it for the lolz?

[mnky9800n]

It sounds like you just don’t like American universities. Good news is you don’t have to attend them or send your kids to them. There are plenty of universities in the world that are not American.