From the article:
> some people have begun to ask: “Is science broken?” > I’ve spent many months asking dozens of scientists this question, and the answer I’ve found is a resounding no.
News at 11: cognitive dissonance is a thing.
> some people have begun to ask: “Is science broken?” > I’ve spent many months asking dozens of scientists this question, and the answer I’ve found is a resounding no.
News at 11: cognitive dissonance is a thing.
Things can certainly improve, and they usually do, perhaps a bit gradually. Take a long view. Science is funded by the public and not the church these days for example. But 'broken'? Not really.
Edit: and non-scientists are very quick to think they know the problems and offer solutions. Working scientists are actively discussing the problems and trying things out all the time. These are not the dumbest people you'll meet. The current model is a bit like democracy - it's the worst system apart from all the other things we've ever tried.
To be clear: I'm not an apologist and I'm not sweeping troubles under the rug. It's just that it is complicated, we're working on it, and it is currently much too productive to be called broken. We have to be careful not to break it.
Are scientific papers meant to be textbook quality results, with absolutely no errors? Or are they meant to speed the pace of discovery of true facts? Because I would argue that they are meant to be the latter, that they are effective at that, and that trying to make them more like the former would slow the pace of discovery.