Science Is Not “Self-Correcting.” Science Is Broken.

I post this with reservations. I tend to fall in the “science is self-correcting” camp which, according to Engber, makes me a “conservative”. So be it. But Engber, who does very good reporting on specific cases of sloppiness and error in science, has never, fully, answered what he believes is the purpose of science. That’s why I agree with Aschwanden, who Engber quotes, arguing: "that we expect too much of science; we act like it’s an engine for discovery, when it’s just a means of moving, herky-jerky, down the long and curvy road to truth.”

Anyhow, Engber is always worth reading:

In the last few years we’ve learned that science sometimes fails to work the way it should. Suggesting it might be “broken” is not the same as saying it’s in a state of utter, irreversible decrepitude—that every published finding is a lie, or that every field of research is in crisis. Rather, it suggests a dawning sense that things have gotten wonky in a widespread way. It says our vaunted engine of discovery is sputtering and that it’s time we brought it in for repairs.