5 ms·

Yes the individual is frail and easily derailed, which is why we have institutions. On whose shoulders the whole process of science rests. So less individual gu

Yes the individual is frail and easily derailed, which is why we have institutions. On whose shoulders the whole process of science rests. So less individual guilt, more answers regarding institutional failures and errors in process design. Obviously, the skinner box built from incentives and punishment, is hacked and useless at best, dangerous at worst.

gonehome 4y ago
I think you have it backwards - often it’s institutional power that delays disruptive results and an individual that discovers new things despite that.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  I agree with you that disruption comes from individuals, but the institutions nourish individual types and filter for individuals. Worst of all, some institutions reward the "meta-hack" aka hacking institutions to circumvent the selection pressure (after all its what they themselves often do to thrive) and before you know it its a office full of people who are extremely good at grant hacking and bad at research. I wonder what would happen, if you would allow for 20 % of the money to be distributed at random. Like if the grant application fails, you still have a chance for a wildcard.
  - naasking 4y ago
    A sortition-like system for grants would help for sure. The problem is, how many proposals are you permitted to submit? If you flood the process you stack the deck for a random win in your favour. I think random reviews from professionals outside of a field might be possible as well, at least reviewing to what extent the data supports a hypothesis. For instance, say you had a random set of statisticians review the datasets and accompanying hypotheses for 2 or 3 competing theories in biology and cast their votes on what hypothesis seems most plausible given their assessment of the data. They wouldn't be familiar enough with the field to recognize the "leaders" that might be influencing a field politically rather than empirically. Not a perfect system for sure, so maybe someone has a better idea.

gonehome 4y ago

I think you have it backwards - often it’s institutional power that delays disruptive results and an individual that discovers new things despite that.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
I agree with you that disruption comes from individuals, but the institutions nourish individual types and filter for individuals. Worst of all, some institutions reward the "meta-hack" aka hacking institutions to circumvent the selection pressure (after all its what they themselves often do to thrive) and before you know it its a office full of people who are extremely good at grant hacking and bad at research. I wonder what would happen, if you would allow for 20 % of the money to be distributed at random. Like if the grant application fails, you still have a chance for a wildcard.
- naasking 4y ago
  A sortition-like system for grants would help for sure. The problem is, how many proposals are you permitted to submit? If you flood the process you stack the deck for a random win in your favour. I think random reviews from professionals outside of a field might be possible as well, at least reviewing to what extent the data supports a hypothesis. For instance, say you had a random set of statisticians review the datasets and accompanying hypotheses for 2 or 3 competing theories in biology and cast their votes on what hypothesis seems most plausible given their assessment of the data. They wouldn't be familiar enough with the field to recognize the "leaders" that might be influencing a field politically rather than empirically. Not a perfect system for sure, so maybe someone has a better idea.