something i've been thinking about based on recent discussions here and having seen the scientific sausage be made from both ends.

sometimes our conceptual foundations for an area of research are a bit sloppy, loose thinking that does more harm than good but largely gets a pass. we go along with it because, for whatever reason, it’s the standard in the field.

when confronted with the limitations of the approach, the cynical scientist will say, yes of course I agree, but reviewers expect this framing and these experiments so I must write my grants and papers accordingly to successfully compete.

but rest assured, says the cynic, do not believe your lying eyes, I do not mean the words that I write in my grants nor in my papers. in truth, in my heart of hearts, I’m a much more rigorous thinker.

now enter the sincere scientist, unaware of the conceptual shell game. they base their approach on what grants are funded and what papers are published. to them, these ideas are legitimate to which they further contribute.

this reinforces the research approach, the cynic may begin to believe their own spin, the lines blur between the cynical and sincere, and the approach becomes so entrenched that it’s almost impossible to escape because funders and publishers defer to the standards of the field.

i’ve yet to encounter a solution to this problem beyond faith, that, in the long-term, eventually at some point, science is self-correcting and that the accumulation of what many acknowledge as detritus is a necessary part of that process.