Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unpopular opinion, but they aren't that far off with regards to academia. Academia has little scientific agenda at its core—most things boil down to money. If you want to make a case for your idea on any topic, put money on that topic and professors and researchers work towards making a case for it (this is less true about math and (maybe?) physics but the farther you get from those topics, the more impact money has…
> Academia has little scientific agenda at its core—most things boil down to money. It's like you're right, but completely wrong at the same time... At it's core, scientific research should not have an agenda. Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas. Yes, the funding is a really big issue and lack of needed followups to interesting results of the initial sponsor often happens wh…
> Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas.
That's not how research works, however---at least not what I experienced. Usually a goal is the prerequisite of the funding. If that goal doesn't align up with the interest of the company/or the funder, there won't be any funding to begin with. That's a lie that researchers tell themselves, that they have the freedom to work on w/e they find amusing.
> Academia being driven by money has less to do with academia and more with lack of money it needs to work on independent research.
Sure. If academia was a utopia that wasn't so dependent on money (and fame), science would take over. That utopia isn't anywhere in sight, however. Try going through academic job market: a popular question you get is how you are going to bring money into the university. If you don't have a good answer, you won't get a position. As a professor, you will be spending 80%+ of your time writing grants or, as you put it, begging different companies for money. The other 20% is spent on classes and bureaucratic headaches. A good professor that I knew had a long rant on how she never gets to do research anymore (from a very well known university).
People twist words and data to make their point, get a publication, make a name for themselves, get more money, and repeat the cycle, all in the name of research and science.
My point isn't that the academic people as a whole are bad, but many of them are trying to survive and are willing to do w/e it takes to bring in money. It is very easy to abuse the bunch when people are trying to survive.
All I am suggesting is that you need to be critical when reading academic papers. Regardless of the content, topic, etc. read and decide for yourself---if it is a field that you are proficient in---or read opinions on counter points.