5 ms·

> I personally don’t see how we can advance science with the current credentialing and paper citation == academic success we’ve seen grow the last 50 years. As

> I personally don’t see how we can advance science with the current credentialing and paper citation == academic success we’ve seen grow the last 50 years. As a scientist I would be thrilled to see someone remove these systems. The question then is: what to replace it with that would work better? None of our resources are infinite. It's even harder when the fundamental problem is research fraud.

hinkley 4y ago
I'm more worried about, "how do we illustrate the clear need for a change without pouring gasoline directly onto the anti-intellectual bonfires that already exist?" Every one of these little scandals points us to opportunities to improve, but also is confirmation bias for people who think science is just one system of superstitions amongst a field of viable contenders.
- idontpost 4y ago
  > I'm more worried about, "how do we illustrate the clear need for a change without pouring gasoline directly onto the anti-intellectual bonfires that already exist?" Asking this question is in and of itself directly pouring gasoline onto the bonfires. Just work on fixing the damn problems. Trying to PR them is part of the problem.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    It doesn’t really matter either way. At a meta-level this isn’t about Alzheimer’s, and it isn’t about “fixing science”. Nobody in this discussion has any constructive idea how to cure this horrifying disease, or how to build a scientific establishment that isn’t vulnerable to fraud. If that’s all we cared about this would be a boring policy discussion about how to fix peer review. But nobody here is interested in having that discussion: this discussion is about whether we should discard the input of the scientific community as hopelessly corrupt.
joemphilips 4y ago
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned prediction market(PM) as the alternative. This is old paper but IMO it is still persuasive. https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/gamble.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/gamble.html

hinkley 4y ago

I'm more worried about, "how do we illustrate the clear need for a change without pouring gasoline directly onto the anti-intellectual bonfires that already exist?" Every one of these little scandals points us to opportunities to improve, but also is confirmation bias for people who think science is just one system of superstitions amongst a field of viable contenders.

idontpost 4y ago
> I'm more worried about, "how do we illustrate the clear need for a change without pouring gasoline directly onto the anti-intellectual bonfires that already exist?" Asking this question is in and of itself directly pouring gasoline onto the bonfires. Just work on fixing the damn problems. Trying to PR them is part of the problem.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  It doesn’t really matter either way. At a meta-level this isn’t about Alzheimer’s, and it isn’t about “fixing science”. Nobody in this discussion has any constructive idea how to cure this horrifying disease, or how to build a scientific establishment that isn’t vulnerable to fraud. If that’s all we cared about this would be a boring policy discussion about how to fix peer review. But nobody here is interested in having that discussion: this discussion is about whether we should discard the input of the scientific community as hopelessly corrupt.

joemphilips 4y ago

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned prediction market(PM) as the alternative. This is old paper but IMO it is still persuasive. https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/gamble.html https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/gamble.html