An important scientific study proves that the result of a scientific study depends entirely on where its funding comes from.

An important scientific study proves that the result of a scientific study depends entirely on where its funding comes from.

March 24, 2025 A Warning Ministry ABSOLUTE TRUTH Academics ANTICHRIST APOLOGETICS ATHEISM Baptist Theology and Doctrine BUSINESS Confusion - Confused - Contentious -Consternation CREATION DISCERNMENT WISDOM SOUND JUDGEMENT EASY BELIEVISM CULT Education Entire Counsel of GOD Family Heaven and Hell Hermenuetics … Exegesis … Homiletics … Eisegesis Modern Bible Versions ONE WORLD CHURCH Philosophy Proper Bible Interpretation Methods Prophecy - Eschatology - End Times Public School System Repent and Repentance Salvation Scholarship Science or Bad Science Situational Ethics Someone Recently Asked This Question! The Gospel of Jesus Christ Theological Liberalism Train the Trainers Mentor the Mentors Teach the Teachers in Christ TRUTH DEFENDED WHAT MEN/WOMEN BELIEVE ABOUT: Truth, Politics, Religion, Science, Business, Heaven & Hell, and many other subjects! Wolf Watch False Teaching Exposed 0
May be an image of text that says 'An important scientific study proves that the result of a scientific study depends entirely on where its funding comes from.'
‘An important scientific study proves that the result of a scientific study depends entirely on where its funding comes from.’
Bill Taylor (12) Facebook

Bill Taylor The scientific establishment, like most establishments, protects its power, prestige and funding at any cost. The Root Cause of Academic Groupthink shows why organizations stick with wrong ideas or policies long after their weaknesses are well known:In other words, the safest, surest, most common path to success in academia involves telling those already designated experts precisely what they most want to hear: That their own work had been so groundbreaking that the most interesting and exciting path forward is to build upon it.Suppose you’re part of the senior faculty of a department committed to the phlogiston theory (i.e., debunked 18th c. chemistry). Two candidates compete for a junior slot. The first presents a marginal tweak on phlogiston citing your own work and that of several colleagues. The second presents groundbreaking proof that phlogiston is wrong.Who gets the job? The candidate whose work flatters you and your colleague? Or the candidate who’s shown that you’ve dedicated your career to nonsense? Now ask the question about climate change instead of phlogiston. Then ask it about DEI. The answer is always the same. Experts who’ve staked their careers and prestige on the validity of a theory will always hire, promote, and reward those who burnish that theory.I’ve termed this phenomenon “incremental outrageousness.” It defines the basic incentive structure of academia—and of our entire credentialed class.https://www.realclearwire.com/…/the_root_cause_of…

The Root Cause of Academic Groupthink

REALCLEARWIRE.COMThe Root Cause of Academic GroupthinkThe Root Cause of Academic Groupthink

  • 2w
  • Like
  • Reply