The other level of problem is that truth in reality means consensus. You can argue about what truth is in reality, but functionally it means consensus.
So it's not even about what is or is not true, or what is recognized as useful in the short term, it's that what defines truth at any given time is what is popularly believed to be true.
This sounds very flaky but it has real consequences because the incentives aren't just to find positive results, it's to find positive results that are likely to be accepted by the majority of the academic field. This kind of positive feedback loop is bound to lead to pressure because science almost by definition has to get some things incorrect — it's how progress is made. So people are actively punished for going against the grain, or exploring areas where our knowledge is limited and therefore prone to lots of negative results because we just don't know.
Perceived truth is consensus. But greater truth, reality itself, remains true even if not a single person is able to perceive it. You can't actually modify reality with wishful thinking.
For these scientific papers, at a minimum truth==reproducibility.
For humanities and social sciences, it could mean consensus, but in hard science it is different. You are doing experiments that produce data. If someone else repeats the experiment, they should get the same data.
In this case, no one could reproduce the results of the papers in question.
I wonder how widespread this has become. How many scientists, driven to publish, know that it is too expensive to reproduce their experiment?
> The other level of problem is that truth in reality means consensus
That’s the job of the prestigious media. They manufacture consent to the masses. They propagate right-think. Again, not a conspiracy but simply incentives.
Anyways, there is objective truth. Not everything can be settled that way though and you’re right in that “truth” can mean consensus in many instances.
The problem with that is that in many things the dissent is tasked with proving claims untrue, because of the consensus, rather than those making claim to knowledge having to prove it is true. There’s a lot of this today.
So it's not even about what is or is not true, or what is recognized as useful in the short term, it's that what defines truth at any given time is what is popularly believed to be true.
This sounds very flaky but it has real consequences because the incentives aren't just to find positive results, it's to find positive results that are likely to be accepted by the majority of the academic field. This kind of positive feedback loop is bound to lead to pressure because science almost by definition has to get some things incorrect — it's how progress is made. So people are actively punished for going against the grain, or exploring areas where our knowledge is limited and therefore prone to lots of negative results because we just don't know.