[davidktr]

Imagine two scientists, Bob and Alice. Bob has spent the last 5 years examining a theory thoroughly. Now he can explain down to the last detail why the theory does not hold water, and why generations of researchers have been wrong about the issue. Unfortunately, he cannot offer an alternative, and nobody else can follow his long winded arguments anyway.

Meanwhile, Alice has spent the last 5 years making the best possible use of the flawed theory, and published a lot of original research. Sure, many of her publications are rubbish, but a few contain interesting results. Contrary to Bob, Alice can show actual results and has publications.

Who do you believe will remain in academia? And, according to public perception, will seem more like an actual scientist?

[tnecniv]

Then Bob has failed.

Academic science isn’t just the doing science part but the articulation and presentation of your work to the broader community. If Bob knows this space so well, he should be able to clearly communicate the issue and, ideally, present an easily understandable counter example to the existing theory.

Technical folks undervalue presentation when writing articles and presenting at conferences. The burden of proof is on the presenter, and, unless there’s some incredible demonstration at the end, most researchers won’t have the time or attention to slog through your mess of a paper to decipher it. There’s only so much time in the day and too many papers to read.

In my experience, the best researchers are also the best presenters. I’ve been to great talks out of my domain that I left feeling like I understood the importance of their work despite not understanding the details. I’ve also seen many talks in my field that I thought were awful because the presentation was convoluted or they didn’t motivate the importance of their problem / why their work addressed it

[johnnyworker]

I disagree that Bob doesn't produce actual results, or that something that is mostly rubbish, but partly "interesting" is an actual result. We know the current incentives are all sorts of broken, across the board. Goodhart's law and all that. To me the question isn't who remains in academia given the current broken model, but who would remain in academia in one that isn't as broken.

To put a point on it, if public distrust of science becomes big enough, it all can go away before you can say "cultural revolution" or "fascist strongman". Then there'd be no more academia, and its shell would be inhabited by party members, so to speak. I'd gladly sacrifice the ability of Alice and others like her to live off producing "mostly rubbish" to at least have a chance to save science itself.