> However when you take all this as a reason to not take this industry as serious as they would like they get all offended.
Just because there exists valid criticism of a thing, does not mean all criticism of it are valid: and in my experience, I mainly roll my eyes in exasperation when people criticize science for unfair reasons.
What the public thinks is broken in science is very often not what experts think is broken in science.
How does what I say validate all or any criticism of science, I just don't think that people who work in this industry get to take all progress though human history and put that on their own lapel.
Do you know this podcast decoding the guru, it is funny at times in breaking down internet persona like Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein but what annoys me about it though is this "researchers" talking about fringe internet phenomena. Sure you can find your cooks on the internet but maybe they should point their sharp criticism at their own sometimes and draw conclusions from it, as in stop funding it.
What do you call people that disagree to agree on something ... a research community.
For all the good science I know I can equally find you the most asinine navel gazing triviality repackaged and sold as groundbreaking progress. Please don't get me started on what experts in innovation management ISO 56002:2019 can do to help valorise all this knowledge as they piss on us from from the top floor of their ivory tower.
Just because there exists valid criticism of a thing, does not mean all criticism of it are valid: and in my experience, I mainly roll my eyes in exasperation when people criticize science for unfair reasons.
What the public thinks is broken in science is very often not what experts think is broken in science.