Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: . . . there appears to be little to be lost in pushing out criticism that > later turns out to have been unfounded nonsense. Some appear to feel > empowered to say whatever negative things they please without worrying that > they might turn out to be wrong later on. By contrast, in the hard > sciences especially, if someone makes a mistake and accidentally shows > interest in a development that turns out to be a flop, it is > very embarrassing for him or her. In this sense there is a kind of moral > hazard that has been allowed to develop, where there is little > accountability for unfounded criticism but disproportionately negative > outcomes for misplaced interests. >
Well said! An excellent summary. No doubt this has always been true to some extent, but I think you are right that the problem has become worse in recent years. Needless to say, this is particularly true of cold fusion. The old rules of fairness and objectivity still apply to many other academic subjects. An institution does not usually become dysfunctional for all subjects. It usually retains some core competence. For example, there was good quality anthropology in 1900, even though some parts of that discipline were overwhelmed with racist ideology. Banks in 2008 went crazy with the housing bubble. I suppose their lending standards for automobiles were not affected by the same forces, and those loans did not default in such large numbers. People can be reasonable about one subject while they go bonkers about another. An unfortunate combination of circumstances caused many people to go bonkers about cold fusion. - Jed
