3 ms·
But you have the same basic problem as now - you’d need some sort of science police to control it, which goes against the scientific process. Essentially it’s a
by m_mueller 5y ago
But you have the same basic problem as now - you’d need some sort of science police to control it, which goes against the scientific process. Essentially it’s a problem of establishing trust in an untrusted system. Putting it
that way actually makes it sound like a blockchain problem. Maybe there could be some incentive system to replicate work based on smart contracts, but I don’t know how you could ensure the replicating parties to be independent.
- ivan_gammel 5y agoScientific progress today heavily depends on financial support of society, so as a whole it cannot be completely decentralized and independent. People want to know how their money are spent and want to have guarantees that science will not create something awful. This means that policing of science is inevitable and important part of the system. It is not a question if we need science “police”, it is a question how it should look like. Today it is decentralized: someone maintains the list of media publishing in which will count for citation index, there are ethical committees and scientific boards, lawmakers regularly tell what can be done and what should not etc. How this will change if there will be a new system of incentives in place, we can only imagine: it can be a good or a bad thing, but as long as the system remains democratic, all problems should be easy to fix.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]