Dr. Racket wrote:
Not sure how you can "disagree" with the replication crisis. It's pretty broadly accepted as a major issue in the scientific community, especially in social "sciences" and in medicine - I've literally never heard anyone deny it so that's sort of new to me I guess. Some fields are more immune to it, like math, but those fields have their own issues as well with the lowest effort articles showing up in journals.
And it's not just "discovering truths about the world is hard." It's straight up sh!tty work being carried out and published in journals of increasingly lower quality. A lot of people blame "publish or perish" and the fact that there's more people with PhDs churning sh!t out than ever before so you're bound to get more garbage. Having to constantly refute a bunch of low quality garbage isn't progress
I guess I have several issues with this line of reasoning.
1) People claiming replication problems are signs of widespread fraud. You didn't do this but it's widespread and patently false in natural + physical sciences at least. A vast, vast majority of scientists are honest.
2) If you don't "trust but verify" stuff in low tier (and CNS) journals that is on you. This has ALWAYS been the truth.
The whole point is that science is inherently messy, wrong, and always changing. A bunch of congressmen hand wringing about $$$ being wasted on incorrect research totally misses the point. The mistakes ARE the research.
3) Perhaps there is more crap out there in pay-to-play journals but most people in my field look past the actual predatory journals. Evaluating others evidence (and presentation thereof) is an essential scientific skill.
4) There is a risk of lumping incorrect science in with fraud and punishing people for making mistaking (or even not being omniscient). That's a big, big problem that would chill scientific freedom.
For what it's worth, I've never heard anyone in my field or anything adjacent complain that "too much" stuff is being published. Hard to argue against more information.
Anyway that's my two fairly poorly organized cents, fairly tangential to this thread.
May some of the stuff in social sciences is worse but it's not my field so I don't want to point too many fingers.