>>12396621>I am trying to understand why the methodology of actual science is being distorted or just outright ignored by mainstream institutions and the public.I don't know where to begin with your inexperienced ass. First, as a trained scientist reproducing the work of (sometimes) grad students, I can confirm that research is often so complex that a paper is hardly read closely by more than one person before its published, before the citation is pressed into a personal resume, and they have been HIRED in some comfy post-doc position.
This is not a problem of science, and it is not the responsibility of how did you put it, "mainstream institutions and the public." While the reviewers bear some responsibility for the literature, it is not until reproducers reproduce, or fail, that anyone knows what is going on, the majority of the time.
So, if your, for instance, your paper's subject is in an esoteric field of Psychology and is sufficiently marginal, or the parameters of your experiment sufficiently abstruse, many years could pass, before it is discovered, if at all.
And since so much of what is published is essentially disproven, superceded, or rendered obsolete through the passage of time, the relevance of any one instance of experimental error, can hardly be said to affect current understanding, which is a derivative of a great many experiments.
In conclusion, you are an overwrought undergraduate, and I hope you one day reproduce.
