Carina’s swanky new apartment building! She and Daniel live on the top floor.
Naturally, they have a home gym.
And Daniel, uhhhh...
... is an artiste, apparently.

seen from Malaysia
seen from Greece
seen from Brazil

seen from United States
seen from Argentina

seen from Italy

seen from Argentina
seen from Greece
seen from China
seen from United States

seen from China
seen from Maldives
seen from Italy
seen from South Korea

seen from Netherlands
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from Russia

seen from Ireland
Carina’s swanky new apartment building! She and Daniel live on the top floor.
Naturally, they have a home gym.
And Daniel, uhhhh...
... is an artiste, apparently.
Carina heads back to school on her own.
Cutting off funding for science and the humanities is the wrong approach. Instead, we should pour more into it and watch them struggle to replicate studies.
Instead of defunding the humanities or any other field, we should do the opposite. Increase funding, but only towards efforts that challenge published studies. We could create career tracks for researchers to focus on replication, challenging norms, and attacking bias. Instead of defunding academia, we should force them to defend themselves, their ideas. If they can’t withstand a scientific peer-review, we label those ideas what they are—junk.
You could accomplish this two ways. First, President Trump could have federal agencies direct money towards targeting specific fields with outsized issues of replication or bias. Many agencies conduct research, and pivoting towards replication work wouldn’t be out the norm for them.
Second, politicians in Congress can go from railing against spending on frivolous studies to recommending certain fields as needing deeper investigation. Politicians can ask for funds to get moved toward testing the replicability of those ideas.
For critics who would point out here that this is politicizing science or research, I’d say that ship has already sailed. We live in a thoroughly politicized world. Getting the public engaged in challenging bad ideas would go a long ways toward forming a more objective scientific consensus.
We’ve seen versions of this from countries like the Netherlands, which expressly set aside replication money to test out claims by e-cigarette makers. We would merely expand on that idea.