Wow, you sound just like me, seeing this in every subject.
However, I used to be a staunch creationist for the first 25 years of my life. I "knew" the evidence existed for god, because it was repeated constantly to me how much of it there was. So I tried to find just a single piece of objective evidence for god's existence, which couldn't be refuted, which I thought at the time wouldn't be a hard thing to do. But it led me to the realization how indoctrinated I was.
Now, applying that same level of scrutiny that I though was a central part of science to science-based disciplines like biology, I find this level of scrutiny isn't really shared by other students, or it seems, practitioners. I see the same resistance, the same personal attacks from people who consider themselves intellectuals, because their religion of establishment science is attacked. If anything I think having been brainwashed for so long, and then coming to a realization how the same techniques are used absolutely everywhere, even in "science" (where the scientific method is often not applied), makes one very cautious, and heavily skeptical.
Couldn't agree more that the root of the problem is being caused by mostly public ignorance. There is a nasty vendetta most people hold against those "white lab coat kitten killing evil scientists", and it does little to foster an environment where people would wish to become scientists for the public good, to find true causes and cures of disease at their own personal sacrifice. How could they when they're vilified so much for making such life sacrifices? You're up against people who can't appreciate the need to kill mice to save millions of human lives later. The logic does not connect for them.
This wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't so much interference in science by lobbying groups and government, which the public, as you say have a strong influence over. The end result is what we have currently. Billions wasted. And I'd strongly argue, it would be better if those billions were never spent in the first place. The amount of false data and studies there are makes separating the truth from the chaff nearly impossible. Editors routinely fail (most of the time) to filter out studies that later are found to be false. And it's not entirely their fault either. How can a few editors be expected to pass or fail a study that involves vast amounts of equipment, time, laboratory personnel, statisticians and other domain-experts? They aren't given the resources, personnel or equipment to properly verify whether the study should be published or not. Heck, they're not even paid at all!
One part of the solution to this dire state of affairs is for replication to be taken much, much more seriously, with appropriate teams of full-time replication experts (biology scientists, statisticians, technicians), all highly paid, dedicated to this task full time. And even then, that would just be a small part of the dent in this bigger problem. You then have the pharmaceutical companies purposefully withholding or fabricating research results, with domain experts doing so in ways that most people would never be able to discover them.
The whole problem is rooted in science becoming a career move instead of a pursuit of knowledge. Until this is changed back to the way things were in the days of the Newtons and Descartes, any brilliant mind is strongly encouraged to tread down a path that serves little use to science and knowledge discovery, and many uses to politics and industry. I think personally the entire concept of ingesting chemicals hoping for brain state changes is antiquated. But it's a perfect business model for any form of recurring income. And in any business or marketing course, we know that recurring income and upsells is the most basic form of recurrent revenue.
Imagine if we had real scientists with the funding that has been invested into medicine and biology, instead of this mass produced cargo cult brand we have currently. We would be altering these states of mind permanently via brain implants and electrical therapies. Even for aging, how can the heads of so many government departments, and leading scientists "not get it" that by curing aging, all the myraid of neurological disorders will, in turn, be cured too, as the underlying process of the nervous system is understood, instead of one isolated disease after another isolated disease; with little underlying holistic thinking of how to connect all the dots missing. Why would they connect the dots? That would put everyone out of a job.
Edited by littlePawn, 27 July 2015 - 08:01 AM.
I'm willing to participate in this, though.
