like you go to the not-believing-until-seeing convention with lies and what? expect to get away with it?
I’d say there are three pieces, each feeding into the next.
- A Culture Favouring Novelty Over Replication - There are no Nobel prizes for replicating findings. There is no Fields medal for roundly and soundly refuting the findings of a paper. There is no reputation to be built in dedicating oneself to replication efforts. All incentives push towards novel, novel, novel.
- Funding Follows Culture - Nobody wants to pay twice for a result (much less thrice) especially if there’s a chance that you’ll expose the result as Actually Wrong on the second or third go.
- Publish or Perish - Scientists have material needs – both personally and for their actual work – acquired through funding. That funding demands the publishing of novelty. If your results aren’t novel, then they won’t get published (not anywhere that matters, anyway). And if you don’t get published (where it matters), then you don’t get funded. And if you don’t get funded, you perish. And so the circle of scientific life is complete.
At every step, the incentives involved in the production of science are, ironically, rewarding un-scientific behaviour and ignoring – if not outright punishing – actual science. Until replication is seen as an equal to novelty, this regime will persist.
Fuck capitalism!
We need housing and food for everyone, then we can all chill out and focus on advancing further.
This hamster wheel of shit is going to kill us all.
Before I decide you’re cool or not you have to pass a test.
How do you feel about NATO?
Simple - does anything threaten the housing and food? If yes, can NATO stop it? If yes, then yay NATO. Any other case? No thank you.
Demilitarizing the world won’t happen in a night, but we all know NATO won’t agree to it, so it will have to go eventually.
I would argue belligerent nations waging war on agricultural nations, for example Ukraine, is a threat to food and housing.
Well there we go!
In ideal world, things like that would not be necessary, but as we know, asking countries to destroy their weapons never leads to their prosperity… so fuck that, too.
I didn’t ask about Ideal world NATO, I asked about NATO which implies the context of reality we currently live in.
Did I not answer that question in my first comment? Wait - I did.
I then tried to hint that (as my first comment actually started), we as species should try to build a better world, focusing on providing the minimum for everyone before giving very few everything there is.
Is NATO perfect? No, it sucks, but we currently won’t do any better. Like nothing I keep repeating all over here.
But I wish we stopped everything, and I mean everything apart from housing and basic food, to actually solve the climate crisis.
And, ironic as it is, stopping everything would actually be the best thing right now.
Building a better world involves unconditional support of mutual defence pacts such as NATO. Once you’ve eliminated the cause for NATO, then dissolving NATO will make sense. Building a better world without NATO just sounds like some Putin/CCP Cocksucking in the context of our reality.
