Or maybe some are defensive of bad science and can't stand to see news that attack bad practices in mainstream science to be lauded?
Being anti- the bad versions/practices of something is not the same as being anti- that something. (The same way a whistleblower cop is not anti-police).
There's this story Brecht wrote about a guy telling another: "I'm an enemy of newspapers. I want them closed down". To which the other guy replied, "I'm an even bigger enemy of newspapers. I want better newspapers".
>as if scientists were secretly trying to make their own work less available and obscure on purpose.
If that gives them an advantage (e.g. publishing lots of BS papers and advancing their careers) then they are (and we know they are, meta studies and experienced academics say and show so). There's nothing of the "Area 51/Illuminati" kind of conspiracy thinking about this, if that's what you imply.
Rather it is the classic self-advancement BS that goes on since the world started, where people exploit loopholes and cheat to get ahead. That includes scientists, especially in today's publish or perish climate.
This. I am against bad science and bad scientific writing. There is plenty of both (just follow @RealPeerReview on twitter if you need convincing, but be prepared to suffer).
That doesn't mean at all that I'm against science. In fact, the opposite is the case – I'm against bad science, pseudo-science, and bad science writing because I'm so ardently in favour of good science.
And who is to define bad science? People who, by their own words, were not able to read scientific papers because they are "difficult to understand"? I am not saying that the specific language used in scientific literature is an advantage, but also doesn't constitute a problem in itself. Unless you are able to read those papers and point out where the "bad science" is, this is just a vacuous statement.
Also, pointing at failure points in the peer review process is ridiculous. This is not religion where you need to uphold every word. Science is made with lots of ideas that, looked from far ahead, are incorrect. "How did that ever cleared the review process"? Well those reviews only cover the minimum necessary for something to be published, it is not a guarantee that the contents are correct. It is the social process of science that takes care of that.
Being anti- the bad versions/practices of something is not the same as being anti- that something. (The same way a whistleblower cop is not anti-police).
There's this story Brecht wrote about a guy telling another: "I'm an enemy of newspapers. I want them closed down". To which the other guy replied, "I'm an even bigger enemy of newspapers. I want better newspapers".
>as if scientists were secretly trying to make their own work less available and obscure on purpose.
If that gives them an advantage (e.g. publishing lots of BS papers and advancing their careers) then they are (and we know they are, meta studies and experienced academics say and show so). There's nothing of the "Area 51/Illuminati" kind of conspiracy thinking about this, if that's what you imply.
Rather it is the classic self-advancement BS that goes on since the world started, where people exploit loopholes and cheat to get ahead. That includes scientists, especially in today's publish or perish climate.