I'm curious why you think this would be an easy task. It strikes me as quite difficult! Separating scientific wheat from chaff requires a lot of effort and expertise.

As one famous example, Sokal intentionally made up funny bullshit and still fooled a ton of people!

▲

gs17 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think it's an easy task in reality, but they were claiming there's "countless humanities graduate programs that do nothing but produce and spread left-wing propaganda" outnumbering the important grants and taking up all the funding, which should be a lot easier to audit for and cut a large portion of it without killing any "real science". Instead, we got a clumsy keyword search.

▲

paytonjjones 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm sure I'll get heat for this, but I think a low-resolution first pass a la keyword search was actually an excellent call from a macro standpoint. It (1) clears out a good chunk of cruft, instantly, with little effort and (2) scares people away from doing further explicitly ideological work.

There are a surprising number of social scientists who engage in both good basic research and useless ideological bone-picking, and the low resolution pass effectively pushes them to focus on their real work.

▲

notahacker 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah yes, nothing incentivises focus on "real work" like having to check that your abstract doesn't contain any words that trigger the administrations' censors after some ignorant edgelord's algorithm defunded your study of transgenic mice or black holes.

Luckily now the administration has great scientists like RFK Jr setting research priorities, no more useless ideological bone-picking is taking place

	▲	4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]