Critiques of Modern Scientific Practice | Generated by AI
Question: What are some unpopular opinions about modern science?
Answer:
Modern science, despite its prestige and funding, has accumulated criticisms that are often dismissed or suppressed within mainstream academic and institutional circles. Here are some genuinely unpopular (but argued-for) opinions that circulate among skeptics, philosophers of science, and dissenting researchers:
-
Most published research findings are false or irreproducible
The replication crisis (especially in psychology, medicine, and biomedicine) shows that 50–90 % of studies cannot be reproduced. Many scientists privately admit the literature is littered with false positives driven by p-hacking, publication bias, and career incentives, yet the system pretends the literature is mostly reliable. -
Peer review is broken and largely theatrical
It catches typos but routinely fails to detect fraud or major errors (e.g., the STAP stem-cell scandal, the Alzheimer’s amyloid paper that may have derailed decades of research). Reviewers are anonymous, overworked, and often competitors; the process mainly enforces conformity rather than truth-seeking. -
“Consensus” is often manufactured or irrelevant
Appeals to “97 % of scientists agree” (climate) or “the science is settled” are used as social-proof cudgels rather than arguments. Historically, strong consensus has been wrong (e.g., plate tectonics, heliocentrism, peptic ulcers caused by bacteria). In some fields today, dissent is punished with de-funding, de-platforming, or career cancellation. -
Big Pharma and regulatory capture have corrupted medical science
Clinical trials are overwhelmingly industry-funded, endpoints are gamed, negative results suppressed, and regulators revolve between industry and government. Many blockbuster drugs have marginal or questionable benefits once all trials (not just the published ones) are examined. -
String theory and multiverse cosmology are closer to metaphysics than physics
After 40+ years and zero experimental predictions, many theorists treat untestable ideas as the frontier of physics. Critics (e.g., Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, Sabine Hossenfelder) argue this has stalled progress in fundamental physics. -
“Follow the science” has become a secular religious slogan
Politicians and institutions use the phrase to launder policy preferences while ignoring uncertainty, trade-offs, and dissenting experts. During COVID, this justified flip-flops (masks, lockdowns, lab-leak hypothesis) without admitting error. -
Much of modern psychology and social science is ideologically captured
Replication rates are abysmal, and topics touching sex/gender, race, or inequality often produce results that align remarkably with progressive priors. Heterodox findings struggle to get published or funded. -
Null results and negative findings are systematically buried
Journals hate publishing “we found nothing,” so the literature is massively biased toward positive results. This distorts entire fields (e.g., candidate gene studies in genetics, most nutraceutical research). -
Impact-factor chasing and hyper-specialization have made science less ambitious
Scientists now optimize for citations and grants instead of big-picture breakthroughs. “Salami slicing” (publishing the smallest publishable unit) inflates CVs but fragments knowledge. -
Open-access predatory journals and preprint servers have worsened the signal-to-noise ratio
Anyone can now pay to publish garbage, and arXiv/Biorxiv/etc. host thousands of low-quality preprints that never get retracted even when clearly wrong.
These views are unpopular inside most university departments and funding agencies, but are openly discussed by figures such as John Ioannidis, Sabine Hossenfelder, Stuart Ritchie, Richard McNally, Peter Woit, and (formerly) many COVID-skeptical scientists who later faced censorship or career damage.