[fnordpiglet]

No actually there’s a large body of quashed research over these decades that went against the prevailing hypothesis. It’s one of the key examples of how peer review fails to consider novel approaches in the face of consensus even if consensus is shown to likely be wrong. The fact the original research driving the consensus was fraudulent at worst made it that much more sad.

To be clear this isn’t about whether it’s right or wrong it’s about that science involves investigating all avenues with evidence, proof, and rigor. Group think is how we end up incorporating bias into science, which is anti scientific.

[a_conservative]

An example of fraud in research that contributed to the consensus.

> The 2006 paper suggested an amyloid beta (Aβ) protein called Aβ*56 could cause Alzheimer’s.

https://www.science.org/content/article/researchers-plan-ret...

[cassepipe]

I believe you don't have read the link I posted because its author does address the narrative you present here

But again I am not saying you are wrong and I am even sympathetic to this narrative but ultimately, unconvinced, either way

[uxhacker]

Groupthink is very much the scientific method. According to Imre Lakatos the key question is does the group expand knowledge or contract it (very rushed reply as about to catch a flight)

[biomcgary]

In Lakatosian terms, the amyloid hypothesis is an example of a degenerating research program that has largely failed to predict new observations and is primarily driven by post hoc reasoning. The hypothesis was rescued by research claiming a significant new observation that was ultimately shown to be fraudulent (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12397490/).

From a Lakatosian perspective, the amyloid hypothesis is not necessarily wrong, but it is not paying off in terms of empirical insights relative to the amount of attention and funding it has received.

[jjtheblunt]

Proofs and Refutations is a great book

https://a.co/d/0cXTgHgv