[wegs]

> Yes, but I guess I wouldn’t label them as scientific processes, which I would assume be in line with the scientific method.

It's that exact assumption which is common, incorrect, and which I'd like to see addressed in K-12 education.

The scientific process in my discipline works as:

1) Graduate students come in to do research

2) Ones which align with hot topics have venues to be published, people to cite them, sources of funding, etc.

3) Some people do diligent work, and write a publication a year. Those don't go anywhere. Some people write 12 publications per year, often based on poor scientific methodology and buggy analysis algorithms.

4) The highest-impact results often come from methodological errors, and never replicate. Most errors are never found, but even if they are, by that point, the people who wrote those papers have found tenure.

5) No one has time for good peer reviews, so reviewers glance at the abstract, sometimes to see if they were cited, and skim the paper.

6) Press picks up the sexiest results, which almost always are nonsense. People also cite the sexiest results.

Increasingly, this has moved from sloppiness to intentional gaming of the system. About half of academics I saw hired in the past decade had some level of intentional sketchiness going on.

This doesn't align well with scientific methods.

In the same way, I think high school civics courses should talk about issues like buying influence, polarization, and corruption as part of civics.