“Is Science Broken?”


In Discover, Neuroskeptic previews an upcoming debate, in which he’s involved, on the topic of whether science is “broken.”

“(Karl) Popper says that rather than trying to find evidence for hypotheses, we should actively seek to find evidence against them,” writes Neuroskeptic. “Yet in science today, scientists are incentivized not to do this. Negative results are discriminated against, and find it hard to get published.”

Is Science Broken? Let’s Ask Karl Popper (Discover, March 15, 2015)

Support MIA

MIA relies on the support of its readers to exist. Please consider a donation to help us provide news, essays, podcasts and continuing education courses that explore alternatives to the current paradigm of psychiatric care. Your tax-deductible donation will help build a community devoted to creating such change.

Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Billing Details

Donation Total: $20 One Time


  1. “Publish or perish”…
    You’re not supposed to have negative or even surprising and difficult to explain results. You have to publish a consistent “story” otherwise it’s not “sexy” enough for a journal. Reality of science nowadays.

    Report comment