Science is a fundamentally skeptical endeavor. Institutionally, this means setting up reporting such that claims are not to be believed or repeated unless and until one can reasonably infer that the findings are not spurious.
Two problems: 1) it’s generally the case that to draw correct inferences outside of our subject-area experise requires a collective effort. Dealing with incorrect inferences on our part is part of our journey in a complex life. Collectives are made up of individuals who are not subject-area experts, so integrity is not a guarantee even in thoughtfully-construed institutions. 2)
just making it up to benefit yourself personally.
So how is it that it is now being eaten alive by
Fundamentally, science is not institutional. Having been the purview of individual discernment since time immemorial, science is Deep Observership. Observations (derived variously from inspirations, experiments, thoughts, instruments, calculations, etc) are translated into facts and preferences in accord with the representational limits of reality.
Many species, like our own, prefer and benefit from institutional knowledge. Thus we may find ourselves in a knowledge paradox.
Willingness to reform “what I mean”.
Reality is inclusive of all real things, so things not necessarily meaning what we think they mean is the real state of existence.
Unlock responsive imagination
Reform context
If looking at the OKIC figures gives you a feeling of overwhelm or transfixes you to the point of being frozen with questions, you likely suffer from inhibition of responsive imagination.