Interesting.
As someone who still haunts the subjective forum for many years, I’m used to quite a number of subjectivists who are making crazy claims mentioning that they have scientific jobs.
This type of stuff, along with so many other examples, reinforces my view of just how critical the scientific method itself is as well as peer review.
The whole point of course is that scientist are just as subject to biases and going down rabbit holes as anyone else, which is why they apply rigourous controls for those human failings, as well as a system of Having to meet certain standards and being checked by their peers.
Once you start operating outside of that framework, frankly, “ there, be monsters.”
Any scientist can slip down any crazy rabbit hole as soon as they stop actually doing science. We see this all the time, even from great scientists who, after making their mark in real science start to think therefore any of their speculations are substantive. But when they do that outside science and only get the feedback of their audience, they can just start saying crazy shit.
There’s even more amplification of this phenomenon these days via social media and the Internet, amplifying the status of Mavericks and contrarians “ working outside the system.” They think they are freed from stifling orthodoxy or even from “ the general conspiracy against their ideas.” And so operating outside the framework of science down the rabbit hole they go. Cheered on by certain audiences, who like being free of the effort required for expertise, which allows them all to “ know more” than the experts, just going on their intuitions and spit balling.
And unfortunately, as contrarianism, distrust of institutions and conspiracy thinking becomes more prevalent, it is the mavericks working outside the systems who are seen as more insightful, knowledgeable, and trustworthy, over the scientific consensus.
Ugh. This age can really suck in some ways.