Yes but surely we aren't dealing with a problem that is so complex that it can't be stated in a more accessible way than this. I am a great beleiver in dealing with subjects in as down to earth way as possible.
I think it would be nice to have a clear way to identify the distorted hypotheses and conclusions of so much of modern science, but since it would seem that academia does not use the labors of Schick and Vaughn to police its work, it doesn't seem like a good place to start.
To me, there are a small number of key problems
1) A fanatical insistence that consciousness doesn't really exist - in anything - even though it seems to exist in humans and many animals. That belief drives a lot of nonsense in science.
2) The creation of a science hierarchy, in which those at the top can control what the underlings say or write.
3) The coupling of science to money, which produces finience (meant as a joke, so please don't start to use the term!) - which is good for very little, but pretends to be doing excellent science in partnereship with industry.
4) An extreme reluctance to admit serious mistakes, particularly when money is involved. This is probably linked to item 2 and 3, because the 'leaders' like all their underlings to sing from one hymn sheet, particularly when there are important contracts at stake. (Watch the Jason Fung video I posted above for an example of this!).
5) The demise of really knowledgeable science correspondents.
I know this isn't exactly the question you were answering, but hypotheses only even make sense if science actually has the goal of getting to the truth. Every one of the above drives science in directions that have less and less to do with discovering truth.
David
All totally valid as life missions David. I touch on some of this in my blog; however, in order to provide credible thesis on such social conclusions, I must cite real world case examples. #2, 3, 4 and 5 all could get me sued for defamation if I professionally pursued case examples of such things. And in absence of sound case examples... who is gonna listen? We have tons of people saying 'science is screwed up' in vacuous opinion pieces.
So I was indeed faced with the question - write like everyone else? ... or do something different - more impactful? Write shallow pablum for immediate acclaim and acceptance - or write something which will be lauded 100 years from now? I chose the latter in each case.
I am not writing for the lay public, nor to push specific conclusions, nor to change the mind of the already brainwashed. I am writing to change the philosophical playing field in the mind of the young scientific student; who is just beginning their 'career' in science - vulnerable to being taught flawed philosophy from amateur and celebrity sources (fake skeptics and 'critical thinkers'). A number of hits on my site are directed by college and high school teachers. I can see the instructor hit my site, followed then by 20 or so students. This is far more important to me than writing for social acceptance or a magazine level acumen.
So my mission is different - but allied with the mission of Skeptiko. If we are to win, in regard to the valid issues you raise, then we must (re-)train our science professionals as to what is indeed true skepticism. From AP Chemistry, Physics and English, through a rigorous undergraduate school and all the way through grad school - despite taking 6 courses in probability and statistics, 3 in hypothesis formulation and reduction, 9 in calculus and several in modeling and simulation - I never once heard the word 'inference' used in an accurate professional context, never was taught what a scientific hypothesis was (only a Bayesian one), and was never taught how to effect a study design to align with the type of inference demanded by an observation domain.
Scientists are not taught adequate philosophy of science during their development track, nor do they learn it inside their career to a great degree. They are forced to read Plato's
Republic and the
Allegory of the Cave, and then memorize the writings of Bacon and Hume, and yawn their way through that course - not knowing that this shortfall in education ultimately renders them vulnerable to faking their way through their career. Substituting the accoutrements of science (p-values, polynomial regressions and Gaussian distribution models) in place of competence in development of soundness and logical calculus, or ability to discern the probative value of an investigation series. Almost like they are putting on an act.
Millions of people are harmed by the product they produced, but the p-values looked good - they complied with the corporate rubric which they were instructed to follow. They were good students. The journalistic profession lauds them as beautifully dressed, whilst they parade about in their invisible garments of virtue.
And in my determination, this act is from whence originate all the problems of which you lament above. Scientists do not know philosophy, nor are they trained in the philosophy of science, skepticism. Like brick layers who bear not the first inkling of what a home is... they craft for us gigantic edifices of fecklessness. A display in bricks.
And we as the people who must live inside these homes, we complain about it and critique the building style, yet bear no idea as to what served to precipitate their mis-design in the first place.