4 ms·
I think there is truth to the general principle you refer to, but I don't think it accurately describes what I saw skimming experts' comments in the linked thre
by mwt 4y ago
I think there is truth to the general principle you refer to, but I don't think it accurately describes what I saw skimming experts' comments in the linked thread. I'm an outsider to medical research but have experience in other parts of STEM research at universities. Here I saw a plenty of nuance, documentation of historical skepticism, concern over broad perception, and plenty disagreement over technical points. Far from a unified kool-aid drinker sort of situation. And I think there has been plenty of changes of opinions in the Alzheimer's field in recent years given the number of failed drugs - which goes against the idea that these scientists are following their career over the evidence.
- lamontcg 4y agoBut people who are motivated by a decade or two of having their salaries paid by the leading hypothesis aren't going to produce unified kool-aid drinker kinds of rationales to support it. They've had decades to internalize the arguments and they will be nuanced and multifaceted. They're experts and their defense of the old paradigm will look just like expert opinion. There can still be rotten core foundations at the bottom of it all.
- mwt 4y agoI'm not claiming there are no overly stubborn PIs. But we should not be lazy and paint so a brush that we view the field as a monolith.
- lamontcg 4y agoNobody is actually arguing that everyone in the field is goosestepping in perfect synchrony like a cartoon. But human bias applied by groups is actually very powerful.