People’s contempt for academia is such that, while a D-Wave success would be trumpeted as its alone, a D-Wave failure would be blamed on the entire QC community.
Well, academia itself has been attempting to get away from doing the opposite. This is most noticeable in fields like medicine and especially psychology, where anyone disagreeing with whatever the consensus is at the moment is considered an anti-scientific flat-earther, whereas the fact that this consensus itself nearly reverses every couple decades is rarely brought up. Furthermore, on the occasions when someone does bring it up, the standard response is to say that the strength of science is that it can change it’s consensus.
This is most noticeable in fields like medicine and especially psychology, where anyone disagreeing with whatever the consensus is at the moment is considered an anti-scientific flat-earther, whereas the fact that this consensus itself nearly reverses every couple decades is rarely brought up.
Which vicennial cycles of academic consensus have you found most noticeable?
Well, the standard example is nutrition advice. Other reasonably well-known examples include whether post-menopausal women should take estrogen supplements, and how dangerous marijuana is. An example with a longer period is the whole issue with eugenics.
whether post-menopausal women should take estrogen supplements, and how dangerous marijuana is
How many times has the academic consensus on those reversed, and does that match your original claim that for these century-plus old fields like medicine,
the fact that this consensus itself nearly reverses every couple decades is rarely brought up
?
EDIT: feel free to reply to my challenge any time, Eugine.
I thought you might be thinking of nutrition and something like eugenics, but wasn’t sure because I didn’t think they fitted the criteria that well. Anyway, thanks for indulging my curiosity.
One interesting thing about eugenics, is that many of the people who supported the consensus on it while it was popular are still considered respectable whose support for eugenics is downplayed. Conversely, the people who opposed it while it was popular are still considered anti-science loons through the popular telling of misleading versions of history.
Well, academia itself has been attempting to get away from doing the opposite. This is most noticeable in fields like medicine and especially psychology, where anyone disagreeing with whatever the consensus is at the moment is considered an anti-scientific flat-earther, whereas the fact that this consensus itself nearly reverses every couple decades is rarely brought up. Furthermore, on the occasions when someone does bring it up, the standard response is to say that the strength of science is that it can change it’s consensus.
Which vicennial cycles of academic consensus have you found most noticeable?
Well, the standard example is nutrition advice. Other reasonably well-known examples include whether post-menopausal women should take estrogen supplements, and how dangerous marijuana is. An example with a longer period is the whole issue with eugenics.
How many times has the academic consensus on those reversed, and does that match your original claim that for these century-plus old fields like medicine,
?
EDIT: feel free to reply to my challenge any time, Eugine.
I thought you might be thinking of nutrition and something like eugenics, but wasn’t sure because I didn’t think they fitted the criteria that well. Anyway, thanks for indulging my curiosity.
One interesting thing about eugenics, is that many of the people who supported the consensus on it while it was popular are still considered respectable whose support for eugenics is downplayed. Conversely, the people who opposed it while it was popular are still considered anti-science loons through the popular telling of misleading versions of history.