I think a lot of these problems have been created by the incentives, most particularly the “publish or perish” mentality, and the need to justify one’s work to governments for the purposes of obtaining government grants. I wrote a post on it here: https://whatkatydid.substack.com/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-academia My post considers legal academia, because that is what I am familiar with, but I think a lot of the same problems operate in science as well as a few more (p hacking and so forth). The intention of the incentives was not to produce what has occurred; but it has been an unintended consequence. Have you read Stuart Ritchie’s Science Fictions? Quite alarming for this purpose.
I have just begun The Matter with Things after coming back from visiting Iain on Skye last month. His earlier book The Master and His Emissary was a huge contribution to so many fields, including my own life and study, so I am glad to hear so many reports that 'The Matter' is as important as 'The Master'. As he said himself in many conversations, no-one could love real science more than McGilchrist. So it is a deep shame to see the current fear of genuine curiosity and exploration, or care of the wider context, often trounced by money and vested interests. Thanks for this great essay. Here is the link to last month's interview, it' not about 'science' but you may enjoy it anyway. https://carolineross.substack.com/p/in-conversation-with-iain-mcgilchrist
Damn this was eye opening. I always thought about science in that the instruments were not capable of capturing many experiences. Therefore it felt like science was ironically always last to the party - proving what was already experienced.
But this article opened my eyes into the more inconsistent and at times seemingly nefarious components. Just keeps pushing me towards the notion that the deepest truth is that which we can find inside our own experience.
The fact that awareness of this very situation is definitely on the rise -- regarding which, thank you for the great post -- strikes me as pointedly symmetrical with the general tenor of the times. The current zeitgeist is characterized by burgeoning mistrust of all major metanarratives. And though, as many have pointed out, this carries its own host of complications, such as an increasingly troublesome obsession with a multitude of ideologically militant and competing micronarratives, and also an inability (shared by me) to regard pronouncements or communications from any ostensible source of political, economic, scientific, religious, or other authority with anything but deep suspicion accompanied by a dash of disdain, it still feels like a culture-wide Great Awakening. A philosophical Fourth Turning. An apocalypse in the hopeful sense of the term, as the veil is drawn away to reveal the rotted foundations beneath the surface facade of, well, everything. When the house built on sand collapses, this clears the way to build something more accurately reflective of reality.
I think a lot of these problems have been created by the incentives, most particularly the “publish or perish” mentality, and the need to justify one’s work to governments for the purposes of obtaining government grants. I wrote a post on it here: https://whatkatydid.substack.com/p/what-is-the-purpose-of-academia My post considers legal academia, because that is what I am familiar with, but I think a lot of the same problems operate in science as well as a few more (p hacking and so forth). The intention of the incentives was not to produce what has occurred; but it has been an unintended consequence. Have you read Stuart Ritchie’s Science Fictions? Quite alarming for this purpose.
I have just begun The Matter with Things after coming back from visiting Iain on Skye last month. His earlier book The Master and His Emissary was a huge contribution to so many fields, including my own life and study, so I am glad to hear so many reports that 'The Matter' is as important as 'The Master'. As he said himself in many conversations, no-one could love real science more than McGilchrist. So it is a deep shame to see the current fear of genuine curiosity and exploration, or care of the wider context, often trounced by money and vested interests. Thanks for this great essay. Here is the link to last month's interview, it' not about 'science' but you may enjoy it anyway. https://carolineross.substack.com/p/in-conversation-with-iain-mcgilchrist
Damn this was eye opening. I always thought about science in that the instruments were not capable of capturing many experiences. Therefore it felt like science was ironically always last to the party - proving what was already experienced.
But this article opened my eyes into the more inconsistent and at times seemingly nefarious components. Just keeps pushing me towards the notion that the deepest truth is that which we can find inside our own experience.
The fact that awareness of this very situation is definitely on the rise -- regarding which, thank you for the great post -- strikes me as pointedly symmetrical with the general tenor of the times. The current zeitgeist is characterized by burgeoning mistrust of all major metanarratives. And though, as many have pointed out, this carries its own host of complications, such as an increasingly troublesome obsession with a multitude of ideologically militant and competing micronarratives, and also an inability (shared by me) to regard pronouncements or communications from any ostensible source of political, economic, scientific, religious, or other authority with anything but deep suspicion accompanied by a dash of disdain, it still feels like a culture-wide Great Awakening. A philosophical Fourth Turning. An apocalypse in the hopeful sense of the term, as the veil is drawn away to reveal the rotted foundations beneath the surface facade of, well, everything. When the house built on sand collapses, this clears the way to build something more accurately reflective of reality.
PR = peer review <--> PR = public relations
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is why I love the term 'sacred priors' (from one of your previous posts).