3 ms·
The original article as I understood it is breaking a lance for more rigorous selection of experiments based on how much more information the experiments can yi
by cynusx 7y ago
The original article as I understood it is breaking a lance for more rigorous selection of experiments based on how much more information the experiments can yield.
With increasing costs in experimentation it makes sense to prioritize for impact.
In a way it is a meta-science because you need to find a methodology to evaluate which theory, when proven or disproven has the most impact.
I would imagine that the current working method would be to look at how often theoretical physicists cite a specific theoretical result/paper and hence "popularity" is the prioritization mechanism.
- XorNot 7y agoHonestly why is popularity not a good mechanism to determine how we allocate experimental investment? If a large cadre of highly educated people find a particular theoretical mechanism sufficiently compelling to dedicate their careers and time to it, then surely that's a good basis on which to develop experiments to try and confirm whether it's right? Because the benefit of proving it wrong means they'll reallocate their resources.
- cynusx 7y agowell, the author argues it is not optimal due to human fallacies such as group-think and institutional incentives Presumably the economical cost of the experiments are higher at this point then the resource-allocation of that cadre of highly educated people. It's worth thinking about, but not sure if there is a viable alternative methodology to be found