Not shocked.

"Science" of the 1900s was heavily influenced by people willing to do whatever it took to achieve fame or fortune.

The replication crisis is the result.

tjwebbnorfolk 9 days ago | parent | next [-]

Humans are not magically better now just because the calendar reads 2025 instead of 1900. Much of what academics do today is not science either.

Journals are filled with supposedly scientific publications, but actually producing new scientific knowledge is really difficult and rare.

There's a lot of garbage in there.

▲

Aurornis 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> "Science" of the 1900s was heavily influenced by people willing to do whatever it took to achieve fame or fortune.

Scientific research of the 1900s made incredible improvements in medicine and technology. Most of the researchers and scientists weren't trying to be famous or extraordinarily wealthy.

The people you see pursuing fame and fortune, writing books, doing podcast tours, and all of the other fame and fortune tricks are a very small minority. Yes, people in that minority have often been discovered as writing stories that sound good to readers instead of the much more boring truth. However, most people doing science and research aren't even operating in this world of selling stories, books, and narratives to the general public. Typecasting all of "science" based on the few people you see chasing fame and fortune would be a mistake

▲

shrubble 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sacks wrote from 1970 through to 2015; so more recent than just the fusty old 1900s…

▲

rayiner 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think it was just the 1990s. A lot of science really wasn't very rigorous in the 1960s through the 1980s either.

▲

IAmBroom 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The GP said worse: "the 1900s."

	▲	rayiner 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Oh, good catch. I totally agree with that.

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

tekla 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure the Quantum Theory revolution as well as the nuclear revolution can be called "science" (ironically using the quotes)

The Solvay Conference happened in 1927

▲

B1FF_PSUVM 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> "Science" of the 1900s

Science of any kind, looked at dispassionately, is more of a cult than we're prepared to admit. Not a discussion we're going to have any time soon, not until the miracles run out.

▲

rixed 9 days ago | parent [-]

Could you leave us some hints about what you are alluding to ?

Or even better, clearly and honestly spell out what you actually think?

▲

christoph 9 days ago | parent [-]

I can’t speak for the author, but I attended a science conference earlier this year that was almost half science, half healing/meditation workshops. I’m not going to name names, but there were some pretty big academic names there who also have clearly woken up to modern science being more than a bit cult like. Research a couple of areas of science that are currently verboten and see who & what you find there maybe?

It’s just quiet whispers in small conferences at the moment, but this is how the breaking of all spells begins. The momentum is & will continue to build, and probably quicker than many imagine (or will like!).

▲

robotresearcher 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I've been a professional scientist for more than 30 years, and have no experiences like this at all.

A scientist names names. Not doing so is innuendo, and prevents any verification.

▲

rixed 9 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Would you mind naming the exact field or the topic of the conference?

Because of course "science" is a term that's been quite often usurped by all kind of snake oil sellers, but that's nothing new is it?

▲

karmakurtisaani 9 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This sounds vaguely terrifying!

	▲	IAmBroom 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		And intentionally so. "I'm not going to name names, but Many Famous People have done X! You'd be shocked if I backed my claims up with any support whatsoever, but I can't, because <vague morality implications>..."