Funding often dictates research agendas. Projects aligned with donors, foundations, or government priorities get resources, while unconventional or risky questions go unsupported. Are discoveries truly objective if the path of inquiry is pre-determined by where the money flows? 🧪
#philsci
#SciWri

A device looks impressive, but we forget they simplify reality. Eye-tracking shows where people look, but not what they think. AI can summarize medical symptoms, but it cannot read uncertainty or context. The danger is not “bad technology” but blind trust in its outputs.
#SciWri
#metasci

To researchers: When you write a paper, who are you really writing for—readers, reviewers, or algorithms?

Integrity in research isn’t a policy—it’s a daily risk. To tell a "truth", an unexpected result, can mean losing funding, allies, or career paths. How free is science when honesty feels unsafe?

If you could start over, would you still choose research as it is today?

In academia, output is often counted in numbers of papers, not depth of thought. Does a crowded CV bring us closer to wisdom—or bury it under noise?

Many young scientists follow statistical tutorials step by step without ever asking why. Socrates warned against knowledge without understanding — 2,400 years later, it still applies. My essay: tinyurl.com/blind-science

For Socrates, a bad answer was better than no question. In academia today, sometimes we reverse it: no questions, only polished answers.

Imagine walking through ancient Athens, hearing Socrates debate in the Agora. What questions would you ask him?

If you could sit with any philosopher for an afternoon, who would it be and why?