We Don't Need Aliens

The sorry state of scientific research today.

Today's bit contains spoilers for 3 Body Problem, the Netflix adaptation of the The Three-Body Problem novel by Liu Cixin.

Since I want to prevent readers inadvertently seeing those spoilers, and since the piece opens with those spoilers, I'm going to take a moment and...

Thank everyone who subscribes for inviting me into your mailboxes.

Thank my paid subscribers for supporting my efforts.

Thank everyone who clicks "like" on a post.

Thank everyone who shares an article or the Substack page with their friends.

I have settled into a four-a-week rhythm, with free-to-all articles running on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and paid articles running on Sundays. I will occasionally un-paywall those Sunday posts the following Saturday, but many will continue to be my special and exclusive thank you to my paid subs.

On to the spoilers!

---

3 Body Problem - novel and TV series - is a first-contact story about an alien race that recognizes its planet is doomed, and that loads some of its population into spacecraft for a 400 year journey to the Earth.

Their goal? To take the Earth for themselves, no matter that this requires getting rid of its native inhabitants.

Their problem? While their technology is well ahead of ours, their history is one of much slower technological advancement, and they predict that ours will have surpassed theirs by the time they get here.

Their solution? Use their advanced technology to destroy our ability to advance ours, whether by driving our smartest scientists to suicide or by corrupting our research to the point of making it useless.

It is that last bit that inspired today's title, for we, in America at least, are doing a yeoman's job of that without any outside help.

Take a moment, if you will, to watch this video.

The TL;DW version is that plagiarism isn't even the worst problem in academic research. Fancy language, such as "imputation," "ecological inference, "contextualization," and "synthetic control," covers the overt fabrication of data in order to drive research toward preferred conclusions.

As one example, the vid presents Claudine Gay, former Dean of Harvard, having written a paper on white voter participation without bothering to gather any actual data on white voter participation.

It's no secret that science today has a massive replication problem. A researched conclusion is only worth a hill of beans if someone else can do the same research and get the same result. In the hard sciences, I've seen estimates that up to 50% of published findings fail this simple test. In the soft sciences, some report that figure is as high as 90%. While I've long been skeptical of single studies that report something "new" or different or contrary to what has been in general acceptance or conclusion, this replication problem, when combined with the echo chamber/groupthink problem of a politically homogeneous population and the inevitable practice of logrolling in climate where "publish or perish" is understood by all, I’m at the point where I hesitate to trust any new findings.

Now, add to that stew of legitimate distrust the blatant lies told to us by our Best-and-Brightest during and since the pandemic, an endless parade of "sky is falling" predictions that haven't materialized, and some truly absurd "conclusions" such as male athletes losing their physical advantages after a year or two of hormone therapy, and we land where we are today: Researchers producing a lot of garbage, and a large segment of the public distrusting everything they produce.

With another large segment of the public believing, blindly and wholeheartedly, the findings that happen to match their preferences.

How does someone who understands how science is supposed to work, and who wants to know what our best and latest understanding of the world and how it works is, separate the wheat from the chaff?

I have an engineering background, experience in how research and modeling (should) work, and the limits and pitfalls associated with all this, and I struggle even when I deep-dive into some present-day research. And, I recognize that I'm totally out of my depth in many subject areas.

What is someone without a background similar to mine to do?

Division of labor has been a reality of human society since the beginning of civilization, and as technology advances, specialization also advances, and we grow more and more reliant on experts to tell us what to believe. When those experts are co-opted by a myriad of forces that put dispassionate truth and rigorous "science" last, we are left in the dark and with growing holes in what we believe and trust. Since nature abhors a vacuum, and since we fear the dark, it's easy to substitute what we prefer to believe is true, and since we are tribal by nature, we are inclined to pick conclusions that our team prefers to be true.

In some cases, we may be right. In others, wrong.

Hindsight is pretty good at telling us which is which, though even hindsight is being subject to these doubt-inducers. Revising and retconning data is becoming more common, as those who seek to avoid embarrassment, continue getting their funding, and perpetuate their narratives bury bad research and inconvenient realities.

Beyond that, we can seek out sources and "checkers" that still have some integrity, and even then we risk the pitfalls of our own confirmation bias, groupthink, and tribalism. Consensus still matters to a degree, but "consensus" itself has fallen prey to the same factors that have produced the replication crisis.

Scientific knowledge will continue to advance, but the damage done to the public's trust is generational. For that trust to be restored, the researchers and the pundits that propagate their conclusions need to have a real "Great Reset," and elevate proper process and acceptance of whatever results the (actual) data point to over “we know the answer we want” manipulations.

Unfortunately, it remains that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and until those who control the purse strings commit to truth over preference, that Reset won't happen.

More likely, the status quo will continue. The incentives simply aren't there to elevate truth above "truth bent to narratives," no matter how much you and I squawk. And, so, the advancement of human knowledge will remain corrupted. Not by aliens, but by our very selves.