Why bad science is sometimes "more appealing" than good science, even for other scientists

Originally published at: Why bad science is sometimes "more appealing" than good science, even for other scientists | Boing Boing

6 Likes

I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain this fact to denialists. They sit there and tell stories about, “My friend couldn’t get any funding to do his research that shows that global warming is fake, because those scientists don’t like any research that says they are wrong.” Scientists are exactly the opposite. They love research that shows that stuff was wrong, that provides actually new information. The best way to get famous as a scientist is to attack previously foundational knowledge and actually do a good job of it. They aren’t withholding funding from anybody but incompetent liars.

12 Likes

"“published papers in top psychology, economics, and general interest journals that fail to replicate”

Economics is scarcely more of a “science” than is astrology, and psychology is likely not much better.

6 Likes

Every time I hear a COVID denier say “Do the research” I die a little.

5 Likes

Does this story sound a little naive to you?

Academics valorize novelty

Or rather, like news organizations, YouTubers, influencers, and mass-murdering Traitor Donald Trump, academics valorize attention. The larger your audience, the more power you have, and nothing brings in the audience like a freak show, the freakier the better.

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.