Bismarck, being the man most responsible for unifying Germany, obviously upheld the tradition of Prussian militarism. The Prussian education system (in its iconic form a result of Napoleon smashing the Prussians) led to scientific advancement. And for a variety of economic reasons, Germany also became an industrial powerhouse.

The French Revolution created the bright Napoleon, who crushed the Prussians, which led to the post Napoleonic order in Germany. It's hard to overestimate how pivotal the French Revolution was in ****ing up everything in Europe.

Given that it literally took a coalition of all of Europe to stop France, everybody saw the power of nationalism under a liberal state and structure. The era after Napoleon is a series of unifications of the duchies and smaller countries in Europe to borders we'd roughly recognize today. Unification of many countries, that is, except for German territories. Germany was basically kept down as disunited duchies while everybody in Europe partied under the new political and social orders.

Bismarck, being the man most responsible for unifying Germany, obviously upheld the tradition of Prussian militarism. The Prussian education system (in its iconic form a result of Napoleon smashing the Prussians) led to scientific advancement. And for a variety of economic reasons, Germany also became an industrial powerhouse.

The impression German nationalists had was that Germany was being "restored" to where it should have rightly been. Their view was that the rest of the European powers, particularly France, were kicking Germany while it was down on purpose. They were also blocked out of the colonizing game, scoring only minor colonies compared to France and England, and lost out on the massive profits due to that.

Combine this extreme resentfulness with a stalwart militarism, and you have a recipe for disaster. Nietzsche saw this current in German society and basically said "y'all should invade Germany right now and stop this early because it's going to lead to the worst wars of history". Yeah I'm going to say he nailed that one smack dab on the head. How the **** Nietzsche predicted it all I will never know.

And I think that's the important thing to recognize about resentful politics. During this period, you have a strong sense of "German superiority" tied with "German inferiority". The mental contradiction is strong. How could the best country also be so behind her neighbors? Well, many believed it's because Germany was maybe a little too nice to the "parasites" it harbored. Die Meistersingers by Wagner is a mid 19th century testament to everything toxic Germans felt about themselves and their situation.

It sucks, too, that WW2 and the Wehrmacht overshadow WW1. WW1 Germany had one of the best armies in history. And nobody remembers just how amazing their war effort was. It's far too buried under their colossal temper tantrum.

He did to an extent, but he was a whole lot more restrained about it than people give him credit for. He was probably the most capable politician of his era, and while he was willing to fight when necessary to achieve his goals, he also understood that war had dangerous long term consequences. He was careful to avoid pressing his victories so far that they would cause long term resentment. Instead he tended to try to end wars early and graciously to prevent long term resentment toward Germany. Most of what he did was to keep Germany from ever having to fight a war on two fronts, because he was pretty sure they wouldn't be able to win it. Unfortunately, most of the rest of Germany didn't seem to grasp these concepts, and they lost two consecutive world wars.

The problem is that this discussion is hampered by a lack of intellectual integrity, so it's hard to get a clear picture of what's going on.

If you want someone to take you seriously, it's best to leave comments like this off the table.

You're not going to get anywhere by basically giving conspiracy theories about how science works. Claiming there might be a slight bias in which studies get funding and published is one thing. But to imply scientists don't have intellectual integrity? That's taking it too far.

If I'm going to actually reply to that post, it's that 1. none of those arguments come even close to speaking against the claim, 2. apply skepticism so generally that they exclude basic scientific fact.

Come up with an argument that can't be filled in by flat earthers, anti-vaxxers and actually try to demonstrate the opposite conclusion. If you think a majority of scientific evidence supporting one conclusion can only mean there's collective intellectual dishonesty towards a specific conclusion, and not that it's just a true conclusion, then you just don't believe in science at all. Might as well not vaccinate your kids.

Saying the people involved lack intellectual integrity is to say they would reject opposing evidence if it was scientifically solid, or that they're purposefully dishonest in their research methods, or that they falsify data. It's an accusation against the moral character of scientists generally.

You also misunderstand my point. Saying the people involved lack intellectual integrity is to say they would reject opposing evidence if it was scientifically solid, or that they're purposefully dishonest in their research methods, or that they falsify data. It's an accusation against the moral character of scientists generally.

I hope you're joking?

It's weak saddling someone with an hour worth of podcast to listen to, but...

https://art19.com/shows/the-weeds/episodes/19474240-83bd-4998-96e1-d20201eaede0

I'm not sure why the "replication crisis" is a thing. We should expect many studis to be contradicted in replication. It's not a flaw in science that this happens, it's the very reason it works.

I mean, really, what would the alternative be? 100% of findings are always right? Do we really expect that? I doubt it.

That isn’t the replication crisis. The replication crisis is that very nearly 100% of findings in many fields are always wrong.

This is happening for a bunch of different reasons. Deliberate fraud, p-hacking, and accepting insufficiently strong p-values.

This also isn’t how science is supposed to work. Science existed before statistics. The replication crisis is a pure consequence of switching the mode of science to statistics, which allows you to claim bizarre things if used inexpertly.

An analysis of the publication history in the top 100 psychology journals between 1900 and 2012 indicated that approximately 1.6% of all psychology publications were replication attempts. Articles were considered a replication attempt if the term "replication" appeared in the text. A subset of those studies (500 studies) was randomly selected for further examination and yielded a lower replication rate of 1.07% (342 of the 500 studies [68.4%] were actually replications). In the subset of 500 studies, analysis indicated that 78.9% of published replication attempts were successful. The rate of successful replication was significantly higher when at least one author of the original study was part of the replication attempt (91.7% relative to 64.6%).

Where do you get that nearly 100% of results are wrong anywhere? I find that initially implausible.

We should expect many studis to be contradicted in replication. It's not a flaw in science that this happens, it's the very reason it works.

You could have listened to the first 3 minutes and 38 seconds of Eversor's Vox podcast, where you would have been informed of the 2005 paper of John Ioannidis, who the Weeds podcast neatly summarizes as the "rockstar" of replication, and goes on to explain how this 2005 paper has been the seminal paper in the ongoing "replication crisis".

Second, most research questions are addressed by many teams, and it is misleading to emphasize the statistically significant findings of any single team. What matters is the totality of the evidence. Diminishing bias through enhanced research standards and curtailing of prejudices may also help. However, this may require a change in scientific mentality that might be difficult to achieve.

Also, I think you have a very strange idea about what the "replication crisis" is:

The replication crisis is not so much about failure to replicate scientific findings being commonplace (Edit: well, the reasons for this being the case (see Jon`C's post) actually are the essential part of the replication crisis at a basic level, but what's much worse is that it means for science) as it is the realization that far too many widely cited, bedrock results of entire scientific fields of study are failing to be replicated, after they have been bandied about in the literature for years and years.

It wouldn't necessarily be a crisis if a large number of papers were failing to be replicated. What is a crisis is entire fields losing their credibility because the results they systematically rely on are probably not even true after all.

If you want someone to take you seriously, it's best to leave comments like this off the table.