> But you can't fix that by funding implausible things, because most of these actually do come from people who don't know what they're talking about! I think t

> But you can't fix that by funding implausible things, because most of these actually do come from people who don't know what they're talking about! I think this framing is inaccurate. The alternative ideas aren't necessarily less plausible. The process by which science is funded does not accurately determine plausibility in my view. It's heavily swayed by factors it should be independent of like fads or sounding good to the proposal evaluator (who may not be an expert in the field) but having deeper issues. To quote from a book I have about writing grant proposals: > [...] writing a grant application is unlike writing a scholarly manuscript for publication in a prestigious professional journal. In the former case, your target audience is likely to be 1) a reader who is not particularly knowledgeable in the area of your proposal (except in a very general sense); 2) an individual who is overworked, tired, hassled, and intent on getting through the required reading as quickly as possible; and 3) someone committed to reading your proposal only because he or she has to. From p. 31 of the 2014 edition of this: http://www.grantcentral.com/workbooks/any-other-agency/ http://www.grantcentral.com/workbooks/any-other-agency/ The status quo is not the best we can do.