第11段

所有这一切的发生，尤其是在气候科学领域，正值克林顿/戈尔（Clinton/Gore）政府时期，当时相关资金增加了十六倍。这股资金的巨浪一直冲刷到社会科学和人文学科的海岸，资助了那些与科学毫无关系的工作，而从事这些工作的人既不懂科学，也不在乎科学。

The Theoretical Poverty of Modern Academia: Evidence of Widespread Intellectual Decline in Contemporary Scientific Research (September 05, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5463155 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5463155

All of that came about, especially in climate science, when the Clinton/Gore administration presided over a sixteen- fold increase of funding. The tsunami of funds washed all the way to the shores of the social sciences and the humanities to fund work that has nothing to do with science, carried out by people who knew nothing about science and cared less.

第12段

戈登·塔洛克（Gordon Tullock，1922-2014）在20世纪50年代初的一次会议上遇到了波普尔。他被波普尔的制度性方法所吸引——这正是塔洛克作为政治经济学家的强项——并撰写了《探究的组织》（The Organization of Enquiry，1965年）。他描述了通过个人和情境因素的特定组合可能发生的情况，从区分真正和认真的好奇心驱动的科学家与那些 “被基金和发表论文引发的好奇心”的研究者。

Gordon Tullock (1922-2014) met Popper at a conference in the early 1950s. He was captivated by Popper’s institutional approach, his own forte as a political economist, and he wrote The Organization of Enquiry (1965.) He described what might happen through a particular combination of personal and situational circumstances, starting with the difference between scientists motivated by genuine and serious curiosity and others with “induced curiosity.”

第13段

献身的研究者受到强烈、常常近乎痴迷的好奇心驱使，去追求真理，与日复一日作为熟练技术人员工作的科学家不同。后者的好奇心并非内在的，而是受雇佣条件的驱动，为了发表论文和维持政府资助的持续流动。正如人们所说，发表或消亡。他描绘了一个自我维持的过程，这个过程可能会推动一个研究领域产生“表面上令人印象深刻，但实际上容易的研究项目”，这些项目并不能推动理解的深入。在这里可以想到气候科学和其他领域的模型构建项目。

Devoted researchers are motivated by intense, often obsessive curiosity, to seek the truth, unlike scientists who work nine-to-five as skilled technicians. The latters’ curiosity is not intrinsic; rather, it is induced by the terms of employment, to publish papers and maintain a flow of government grants. Publish or perish, as they say. He sketched a self-perpetuating process which could drive a field of research to produce “superficially impressive but actually easy research projects” which do not advance understanding. Here think of the model-building projects in climate science and other fields.

第14段

同行评审过程旨在防止这种衰退，但特洛克预见到它可能会被与作者有联系的审稿人所腐蚀，这种联系可能是个人关系或思想流派的成员关系。他推测，在一个由具有政治议程的“受诱导”研究者主导的领域，这几乎肯定会发生。在这条滑坡的尽头，人们普遍接受在当今问题上支持“正确一方”的必要性，因为判断文章是否可以发表的标准将是该作品所支持的立场。

The peer-review process is intended to avert such a decline, but Tullock foresaw its corruption by reviewers associated with the authors, either personally or by membership of a school of thought. He speculated that this would almost certainly happen in a field dominated by “induced” researchers with political agendas. At the end of the slippery slope there is a widespread acceptance of the need to support the “right side” on the issues of the day because the principal criterion in judging material for publication will be the position that the work supports.

塔洛克写道：

在这个领域，关注现实的科学精神可能缺失，整个事情可能被简化为像李森科主义时期的俄罗斯遗传学那样的伪科学。

这是具有预见性的言论，发表于1965年，当时他认为自然科学状况良好，不像部分经济学那样，让他产生了悲观的预想情景。

Tullock wrote:

The concern with reality that unites the sciences may be absent in this area, and the whole thing may be reduced to a pseudo-science like genetics in Lysenko’s Russia.

Prescient words, published in 1965 when he thought that natural sciences were in good shape, unlike parts of economics which informed his pessimistic scenario.

在大学课程和高中课程中重振波普尔的思想可能会产生巨大影响，但眼前的前景却不容乐观。幸运的是，还有另一种方法可以实现同样的目标，它从基层的科学工作者入手，而不是从科学哲学的高层开始。这个方法就是J. Scott Armstrong和Kesten C Green合著的《科学方法：寻找有用知识的指南》一书，该书在《Quadrant》2023年5月刊中有过评论。

Reviving Popper’s ideas in university courses and high schools could have a seismic impact, but the immediate prospect is dismal. Fortunately, there is another weapon at hand to pursue the same result, starting at the bottom with working scientists rather than at the top in the philosophy of science. It is a book by J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C Green, The Scientific Method,: A Guide to finding Useful Knowledge, which was reviewed in Quadrant‘s May 2023 edition

作者首先对当前科学领域存在的问题进行了调查，然后以对科学事业各相关方可采纳的改进建议作为结尾。书中涵盖了评估科学实践质量的章节、倡导问题、对同行评议有效性的担忧以及政府资助所带来的复杂问题。所提出的积极建议面向大学管理者、期刊编辑、政府、法院、媒体以及有兴趣的个人。

The authors begin with a survey of the problems currently afflicting science at present and they end with practical suggestions for improvement that can be taken up by the range of stakeholders in the scientific enterprise. There are chapters on assessing the quality of scientific practice, the problem of advocacy, concerns with the effectiveness of peer review and the complications that arise with government funding. The positive suggestions are offered to university managers, journal editors, governments, courts, the media, and interested individuals.

注：文章核心论点在于，科学界的衰落源于放弃了波普尔式的严格批判与证伪，转而接受了库恩式的范式共识，加之政府资金对科研方向的扭曲，导致了如今的制度性弊病。