4 ms·

You may be right. This may be a hilariously bad idea. But if you are right then it is a shame that you are right. What is the goal of science? Shall we say tru

You may be right. This may be a hilariously bad idea. But if you are right then it is a shame that you are right. What is the goal of science? Shall we say truth? But what are the goals of scientists? You can say that it is truth, but perhaps it is fame/prestige/success, call it what you will. And what about ever-present human bias? And what about discrimination based on ethnicity or gender. I'm no bleeding heart, I assure you, but these things are real. Humans have spent most of our evolutionary lives not being scientists. The suggestion to render part of the scientific process anonymous to mitigate the our human failings, though idealistic, is an _admirable_ idea. That this admirable idea may also be a hilariously bad idea is sad really. You know what? It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Another commenter here wonders what it would be like if we could flip a switch and make the process of scientific discover both anonymous and wiki-based. But why should it be all or nothing? How about a scientific enclave (or more than one!) that adhered to these principles? Well it turns out that at least in mathematics there are precedents! Bourbaki[0] was the pseudonym of a collective if I'm not mistaken and nCatLab[1] is a wiki-lab for collaborative revisable work in math, physics, and philosophy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki [1] https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/HomePage https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/HomePage

micwawa 11y ago
The point of science isn't so much to product truth but to determine which truth we actually care about. So instead "science" is really a community of scientists, and in order for this to exist you have to have all the gatekeepers, in-groups and out-group, canonization, etc. Bourbaki wasn't just a group of random anonymous internet users, it was an inner circle of mathematicians who considered themselves at the center of the discipline, which is completely opposite.
jonwachob91 11y ago
So you are proposing essentially communism meets scientific journals... Great on paper but terrible in practice. Communism created Zero incentive for being innovative. You're proposition creates Zero incentive for being innovative. It sounds like you are on some high horse superiority complex with your noble ideas. The fact is that the researchers that are receiving disproportionately large funding once paid their dues and received little funding. It's Capitalism 101. Plenty of companies have better products but lose because they messed up in other areas. Plenty of researchers have better research but lose because they fail to educate others, fail to take it to the next level, fail to produce anything that has meaning for society.
contravariant 11y ago
I don't entirely agree with your arguments that anonymity would be a good thing. Or even that it's sad that we can't have it. Although I do agree that it's helpful in some situations. You say anonymity would prevent people pursuing science purely for fame. However first of all, science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in. And secondly, wanting to be recognised by your peers is not in and of itself bad, if it causes someone to pursue science then it might even be considered admirable. I think discrimination against authors is a lot more worrying, but the situation is better than it once was since it is now no longer possible to prevent someone from publishing their work. If nobody would read it if they knew who the author was, or if it's conclusion is so outrageous that it might damage the author's reputation, it's also possible to use a pseudonym. I vehemently disagree that it's a sad reality that we can't have full anonymity. A scientific process that is completely anonymous is either unnecessary or if it's necessary then that would be very very sad.
- dalke 11y ago
  "science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in" There's fame, like Einstein had, and there's fame like how everyone in your specific field knows who you are. For a comparison, there's "president of the United States" but there's also "Mayor of Albuquerque". The former is very hard to get. The latter, more common, and more achievable. Here's an example of how anonymity would hurt. A lot of pharmaceutical research is done in industry. While some of the research is kept proprietary, especially early on, other parts are published. It's a lot of work to publish. It may include talking with company lawyers so that confidential information isn't revealed. Why might someone go through this extra effort? One factor, of course, is the altruistic goal of advancing science. Another factor is the more egocentric desire to finally be able to tell others - who are often friends - the cool things you've been working on. A third is the knowledge that layoffs come, and a paper is a form of advertisement for future employment. The latter two disappear if all publications were anonymous.
robotresearcher 11y ago
Scientists compete for scarce resources: funding and great students. How do we allocate money and students to the people who will use them most effectively if we can't measure their effectiveness? It's not just prestige. Some scientists really are better and more productive than others. They should get the resources first.

micwawa 11y ago

The point of science isn't so much to product truth but to determine which truth we actually care about. So instead "science" is really a community of scientists, and in order for this to exist you have to have all the gatekeepers, in-groups and out-group, canonization, etc. Bourbaki wasn't just a group of random anonymous internet users, it was an inner circle of mathematicians who considered themselves at the center of the discipline, which is completely opposite.

jonwachob91 11y ago

So you are proposing essentially communism meets scientific journals... Great on paper but terrible in practice. Communism created Zero incentive for being innovative. You're proposition creates Zero incentive for being innovative. It sounds like you are on some high horse superiority complex with your noble ideas. The fact is that the researchers that are receiving disproportionately large funding once paid their dues and received little funding. It's Capitalism 101. Plenty of companies have better products but lose because they messed up in other areas. Plenty of researchers have better research but lose because they fail to educate others, fail to take it to the next level, fail to produce anything that has meaning for society.

contravariant 11y ago

I don't entirely agree with your arguments that anonymity would be a good thing. Or even that it's sad that we can't have it. Although I do agree that it's helpful in some situations. You say anonymity would prevent people pursuing science purely for fame. However first of all, science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in. And secondly, wanting to be recognised by your peers is not in and of itself bad, if it causes someone to pursue science then it might even be considered admirable. I think discrimination against authors is a lot more worrying, but the situation is better than it once was since it is now no longer possible to prevent someone from publishing their work. If nobody would read it if they knew who the author was, or if it's conclusion is so outrageous that it might damage the author's reputation, it's also possible to use a pseudonym. I vehemently disagree that it's a sad reality that we can't have full anonymity. A scientific process that is completely anonymous is either unnecessary or if it's necessary then that would be very very sad.

dalke 11y ago
"science is a hilariously difficult area to become famous in" There's fame, like Einstein had, and there's fame like how everyone in your specific field knows who you are. For a comparison, there's "president of the United States" but there's also "Mayor of Albuquerque". The former is very hard to get. The latter, more common, and more achievable. Here's an example of how anonymity would hurt. A lot of pharmaceutical research is done in industry. While some of the research is kept proprietary, especially early on, other parts are published. It's a lot of work to publish. It may include talking with company lawyers so that confidential information isn't revealed. Why might someone go through this extra effort? One factor, of course, is the altruistic goal of advancing science. Another factor is the more egocentric desire to finally be able to tell others - who are often friends - the cool things you've been working on. A third is the knowledge that layoffs come, and a paper is a form of advertisement for future employment. The latter two disappear if all publications were anonymous.

robotresearcher 11y ago

Scientists compete for scarce resources: funding and great students. How do we allocate money and students to the people who will use them most effectively if we can't measure their effectiveness? It's not just prestige. Some scientists really are better and more productive than others. They should get the resources first.