In other words, science is hard, predictions are unreliable, scientists are humans and humans make mistakes / are motivated by emotions.
As usual with pieces critical of science they focus too much on a very small number of bad eggs and seem to implicitly assume that scientists should somehow be superhuman.
Even if there are a lot of bad eggs and hype and bullshit, you have to ask yourself what the alternative is. The non-science-based existence we suffered through for millennia? I think not. Excuse us for trying to cure cancer and failing less than 100% of the time.
Part of the reason there is so much hype and bullshit is because, if we weren't cramming it down everyones throats for the 30 seconds they'll pay attention, there would be no money funding science and we'd still be living in our own filth and praying to god that the plague stops.
That's a total misrepresentation of the complaint. The complaint is that claiming to cure cancer or being close to curing cancer to get some funding hurts the credibility of Science as an institution.
Part of the reason there is so much hype and bullshit is because
How will training the public that Scientists are money-grubbing hucksters who are full of crap help the matter any?
A lack of humility and self-criticism is a huge problem in any discipline, especially one that claims to be the best way to learn the "truth".
How will training the public that Scientists are money-grubbing hucksters who are full of crap help the matter any?
Also: It just might teach the public to actually take agency over who gets funded and encourage them to decide for themselves who is or isn't a huckster.
Incidentially, I am trying to cure cancer, and I've set up a nonprofit to do so... And am considering writing an piece explaining why you shouldn't donate to me. (if you can't take the risk of failure, etc.) What do you think? Although I'm being genuine, is it too humblebraggey?
It is valid to ask, if we could do better. I think we can. For example in computer science: Less funding for big projects, but more smaller proposals. Do not consider past publications (aka authority) so much for funding decisions.
But the article doesn't criticize science, in fact, apart from the word, science isn't even mentioned. The article criticizes scientists, science boosters and science journalists. None of those relate very well or consistently to science itself.
The problems discussed in the article, having primarily to do with the difficulties in finding out what is actually so, is why science exists. Science is a (not the)solution to those problems. But to get the solution, one must learn how science works. That isn't even touched on in the article.
As usual with pieces critical of science they focus too much on a very small number of bad eggs and seem to implicitly assume that scientists should somehow be superhuman.