Peer review is a problem because new ideas are killed or buried by jealous, competing or otherwise obstinate peer reviewers. Politics, disciplinary and societal, also infiltrate the process as do stupid peers.

Society has been taught to believe that a person with a 4 year college degree is smarter than anybody else. You can see where that has got us today.

In a former life I used to routinely fight scientist. If you consider wildlife biologists scientist? They conduct studies and collect data. Then they interpret (subjective) the data. Then they come to a conclusion (subjective) from this process. One has to understand the flaws in the data collection, interpretation, and conclusion in order to come to a different conclusion (subjective). Then you have to make your case. Most people believe what they want to believe and will not look at all the information necessary to draw their own conclusion.

A person with experience knows what will probably happen. A person with an education in mathematics, physics and chemistry understands why something happens.

They think they are! Many of the College kids working for Mo's DNR treat you like a retarded red haired step child when you deal with them and almost can't be bothered unless you have some kind of degree. The population is just a pool that pays taxes for their studies and salary. They don't believe a machinist knows what a Mt Lion looks like, and for many years their presence was denied, even when road kills started showing up. Same for Bears, now we're having our first Bear season in many decades.

There are still plenty of true scientists around.

Here is how to tell the difference:
A real scientist starts with a hypothesis; it can even be a hypothesis that reflects his particular bias, that's okay.
But then as data is accumulated a true scientist considers all the incoming data.
A pseudo-scientists simply rejects all incoming data that does not support his original hypothesis.

We see some of this pseudo-science demonstrated by "scientists" involved in climate change issues, and young earth adherents.

Most scientists are objective, because they actually want to arrive at a truism since truth pays the bills in the long run.

I should add to the above; pseudo-scientists are mostly found in fields where they are supporting a particular ideology. This generally occurs with so-called scientists hired by government agencies.

Scientist employed in private Industry must arrive at truths, or they will not keep their jobs very long.

I'll give you an real life example of the scientific process here. There was a biometrician that wanted to test a survey method to estimate black and brown bear populations here. So the method was an experiment in itself. They spent money on planes, fuel, and other logistics to conduct this experiment prior to the trees leafing out. the money was spent and the project was organized and unfortunately we experienced an unusually early green up. They ran with the aerial survey anyway. The raw data showed only bears in the subalpine open regions, none in the forest. If I remember right, they observed 8 total brown bears. Somehow they whipped up a black bear estimate which was similar to the old extrapolated estimate based on Mark Recapture. They concluded that not enough browns were seen to make an estimate. Several years later ADFG referred to this study as coming up with a brown bear estimate of about 800 bears.

If you knew what happened, you would know both estimates are garbage.

Was that disclosed in the study? If so, again that goes to the point that policymakers don't ever read past the abstractor executive summary of whatever nonsense is put in front of them. If not, that's malpractice on the researchers part

Or the money bag bureaucrats wanted to go forward with the research because they had already spent the money--"we're going to get some sort of results, dam...t!!" But yes, if the details of the issues of that spring weren't disclosed that's sloppy and poor work. If people aren't willing to fall on their swords to maintain integrity, well, you've just taken a big step towards whoredom.

Questioning the science is not allowed.

I was at my Dr. For results for an MRI. (I may have MS Brain scan to come) We had a a couple other discussions one about adhd. I gave my opinion and observations with supporting ideas. Basically it's a survival trait. If we were focused on a task like skinning, or making tools we would not notice the predators approach and would be killed in years past. His eyes lit up and he got excited animated even. It seems he was just having the same discussion with a specialist much smarter then him. In the discussions he was the student. I just smiled and asked him " so are you telling my I came to the same conclusion as someone so highly educated on my own?) He answered yes.

Then I asked him about the covid shots. " I'm pro vaccine anything I can do to stop a disease I will I'm vaccinate " I asked a few questions- being new he said the science was proven. 2. Can you still get covid and transmitt it after having the shot. YeS. Ok so how dose the shot stop the disease? Deer in the head lights look no comment and very quickly excuses himself.

The people involved got paid and retired with full benefits. Is that whoring?

Science has done wondrous things and there can be no honest debate about that.
But as are all things humanistic, the pendulum has swing too far in the other direction whereby science: defined centuries ago as that which can be observable, repeatable, and measurable attempting to minimize bias, is now all too often, full blown bias.

Those early scientists, folks like Christians Galileo and Newton and pantheist Einstein sought to seek deep answers for incredibly complex concepts and questions. Grand endeavors all.
Each of these brilliant men were enthusiastic (en = in; theos = god) all their lives.
Today, scientists who labor in deep ways are the outcasts and we even have short mockery names for them; names like geeks.
Smart people today don't need to study anything. They already have answers. They are the 21st century "no" it alls. No one dare oppose me!
They permeate our culture at every level.

But the wonder of what we try to discover is worthy.

Thomas Edison's last words; It is beautiful over there.

Steve Job's last words; Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.

Blessings,
Mark

In Nebraska the G&P asked rural mail carriers to stop at intersections of the roads and listen for rooster pheasants. That's how they calculated the numbers of pheasants in the rural areas. Don't question the science. They're college educated.

I was in that arena (for a short while thankfully).
It's called "desk" research.
"Hi Suzie. Could you email me how many pheasants you heard today so I can put my approval stamp on that? Thank you. We'll talk tomorrow. I'll be here in the office if you need to find me. Bye."

Oops...I'm taking tomorrow off. Make that day after tomorrow.

Don't mistake science with politics. Thats like saying the Miley is a general. There is a big difference between a scientist and the knock of political propaganda activists that are called upon to legitimize bad decisions of the government. It has zip to do with science.