Continuing with the inquiry into scepticism spurred on by Stephen Hawking’s posthumous concern that people are too doubting of scientific experts, now that we have established the need to consider where scientific funding, support and motivation often comes from, and the conflict of interests that they entail, let’s examine the fundamental issues behind the very structure of science itself.
Firstly, consider the growing body of research over the years that has found that very high percentages of research results cannot be replicated.In other words, the findings that have been published in prestigious or reputable journals in their respective fields, and have therefore at the very least passed through the process of peer review to confirm that they are valid, are actually false because they are erroneous, misleading or even fraudulent.
This then calls into doubt the very foundations of what it means to earn the title of ‘expert’, as the standard in most fields, not just to be considered an expert but also to secure employment, tenure and funding, relies on getting verifiable studies published in journals.
Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results
cademic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship
In Psychology And Other Social Sciences, Many Studies Fail The Reproducibility Test
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data
The hi-tech war on science fraud