From Imprimis
At times, the article below reads like advocating change for the sake of change. The graph that compares the US to Sweden life expectancy does not talk to research, it probably indicates better implementation of basic medicine as well as non-existent gun-violence in Sweden.
The statement of COVID-19 is a proof without a proof; in effect, the author trying to replace some facts with his own facts.
There are valid points in this article. And some of the suggestions, such as Replication, do make sense. (The replication criterion may kill 90% of the high energy physics experiment papers.)
However, this is the standard debate strategy of listing some facts, then concluding whatever one wishes. The facts make one's argument look and sound legitimate, even if there is no clear connection.
Science is messy, mistakes are made, strong minds and wills try to control the narrative and money, but in time we seem to converge to Scientific Truths.
Can it be improved, yes.
Should we lend the funds and energy to a slogan like "Make America Healthy Again", I say no. This is a partisan position and prone to the same abuses that have been observed in the practice of scientific research from time to time. Those maleficent incidents do not supply justifications for throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.
An example of misleading "facts:" Per a paper from decades ago, we had more returns on research performed on breast cancer. Of course!!! Anyone in science knows that the impact of an idea in a mature field is much less. That does not necessarily speak to the originality of the science, but the maturity of the field.
McDonald still fries its burgers because it has invested in frying and will have to retool its kitchens. Does this indicate that we have not come up with how to make a better burger?
I do think that we need a Science of Sciences
‐--‐-------------------------
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/launching-a-second-scientific-revolution/
‐--‐-------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment