"This stifling of competing ideas, say a growing number of scholars, is a big reason why there is no treatment for Alzheimer’s."
Question for those who know: is this a problem in general with the culture of academic science?
I am not a scientist, but I feel like I've seen this story more than once in science-enthusiast media: an established but incorrect idea cannot be challenged because it is a risky career move and hard to get funding for.
I understand that crackpots exist, but I wonder how much of this culture is really a barrier to keep out the unsubstantiated and how much of it is just protecting turf and sunk costs?
I have tons of confidence in the scientific method, but decreasing confidence in the institutions that practice it.
Question for those who know: is this a problem in general with the culture of academic science?
I am not a scientist, but I feel like I've seen this story more than once in science-enthusiast media: an established but incorrect idea cannot be challenged because it is a risky career move and hard to get funding for.
I understand that crackpots exist, but I wonder how much of this culture is really a barrier to keep out the unsubstantiated and how much of it is just protecting turf and sunk costs?
I have tons of confidence in the scientific method, but decreasing confidence in the institutions that practice it.