> > > Do you know that the Broken Window theory has been debunked?
> > > https://cssh.northeastern.edu/sccj/2019/05/21/researchers-debunk-broken-windows-theory-after-35-years/
> >
> > there's no need for scientific papers about something i can observe myself.
> > both inside me, in my own reactions and judgments, and also in external
> > reality, in the behavior of other people.
>
>
> Then I don’t know whether you speak of the actual broken windows theory.
>
> That theory says: if there are small problems like broken windows, crime
> will go up, so being heavy handed even for the smallest kind of disorder
> will reduce serious crimes.
this is just a specific (mis)application of the general idea.
the general idea of the broken window phenomenon (at least as it's used in my
circles) is that if there's a building that is seemingly not maintained (e.g. a
broken window is left unrepaired for a critical length of time), then that
building will deteriorate with an increasing speed compared to buildings that
receive just a baseline level of maintenance. (e.g. the other windows will
typically get broken by human action).
put differently, if it's not taken care of (i.e. if this is not someone's
property) then for some people it's an invitation for a free-for-all.
and in a codebase: if i don't see the signs of a careful local gardener, then
why would i put much effort into improving it as a visitor, or why would i even
visit that specific garden among the many?
> > but anyway, i don't have a dog in this fight.
>
>
> When it comes to general statements against science, I do.
i didn't mean to say something against science (the methodology), but rather
against The Science™ (i.e. contemporary academia and publishing gatekeepers,
with its p hacking, citation circles, defunding as punishment, straight out
censorship, etc... generally, giving up truth-seeking for delivering results
based on political/financial agendas).
> I know the amount of work that goes into even a single publication, how
> much more dilligence, effort, and skill that takes than writing a
> newspaper article. How careful most (though sadly not all) people are
> with their statements in publications. I only published two papers
> myself and reviewed a few more, but that experience showed me the
> difference between a scientific publication and just throwing some
> statements into the web.
which is respectable and admirable behavior! and many of the scientists,
individually, still pursue truth-seeking, regardless of where that may lead.
but sadly this cannot be said about the institutions, i.e. about the scientific
cooperation of the individual scientists.
the emergent behavior of the system has been successfully hijacked by politics.
and this won't change until we implement censorship resistant publishing, and
solve the decentralized financing of scientists. (pseudonymity may also be
needed in certain fields, but lasting pseuconimity is a much harder nut to
crack)
and let me finish with a hand-picked quote this time:
--
• attila lendvai
• PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
--
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities
are wrong.”
— Voltaire (1694–1778), 'The Age of Louis XIV'
