Not sure which forum to put this in to. I was just reading this from a Professor of mathematics, and it made me think of psychosocial approaches to medicine, and the lack of concern about them there is from those within the field. I'm sure things like this have been discussed before, but it was interesting to have it promoted so positively here: Pretty much the only academics who have looked closely at a lot of psychosocial work are those who want to make a career out of psychosocial approaches to medicine. They will tend to know other workers in the field personally, and build social bonds with them. They will tend to feel similar to them, and trust them as part of a shared community. None of this is good for an honest pursuit of truth imo. Years ago I was discussing Freud with an academic, and they were saying that they thought Freudian approaches will never be picked apart internally, as those with the deepest understanding of Freud's theories and approaches will be those with the deepest interests in maintaining respect for his work. Instead, future generations will simply become less interested in learning about his work, so it will fade away. I wasn't impressed, and felt that anyone making money from Freudian approaches also had a responsibility to try to pick them apart and make sure that they were reasonable - which was probably highly dysfunctional of me.