Your ideas mesh with those of Eugyppius in these articles: What is wrong with The Science?
Reflections on the unnoticed revolution in our academic institutions that took root in the middle of the 20th century and is steadily wringing all that is original, interesting and good out of them.
This is pretty interesting. It seems as if science is not infallible to similar social hierarchies as other fields in that there tends to be a few who do extremely well while others scatter about with much less. It's similar to YouTube or any social media platform, including Substack, where most authors will struggle to get readers and subscribers while larger ones will continue to grow. Essentially, many things appear to follow a Pareto distribution much to the chagrin of the smaller fish.
I think what makes science rather interesting is the dynamic between the public, researchers, and industry. Consider that most of the research that gets funding tends to be research that the public wants such as cancer, HIV, and Alzheimer's research. The field of Alzheimer's seems like it needs to look back into the literature given that one of the most widely cited articles actually appeared to have been subject to blot manipulation. And yet, at the same time two immunotherapies have been rushed for approval with limited information because the public demands a treatment for Alzheimer's.
This also comes with the fact that the media will take a study and misrepresent or misinterpret its findings, which can then sway public perception even further.
There is hope. I know that a lot of people are down on the direction of everything going badly, but if we survive this moment, and the blockchain innovations deliver on the rerouting of...money...then a more natural equilibrium can be restored.
One problem is that most papers are written by PhDs and not by people that have worked 30 years in the field. The PhDs also have to follow the existing theory environment, and are very biased to belief in these theories. They do not learn to break existing things to advance science.
Just as an example, I found out after 30 years that the theory of Quantum Mechanics was actually falsified by experiment (by Eric Reiter). It was one of the fields I studied a lot for micro/nano-technology. And I was excited about phenomena (like superconductivity) that were related to it. Here is my article on it: https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/quantum-physics-has-been-falsified
By looking at the actual physical evidence and logic, I became somehow an expert in discovering false paradigms within science. Often this is easier by an outsider than insider, due to the bias in the field.
So the solution is to look at the actual physical observations without any bias. And try to falsify your theories and fundamentals each time when you are ably to make new observations.
Hypothesis: Centralizing the purse strings leads to a competition for funding, and a gamed/narcissistic competition for funding.
Hypothesis: Centralizing the purse strings means centralizing the rewards, too. We see economic growth slowing, which is downstream of scientific progress.
Now that the woke and non-binary will be given preference for grad school and med school I'm sure new papers with radical perspective will be on the horizon
IMHO Physics died like +30 years ago with string theory, everybody was doing it, all else was ignored, nobody could draw attention to the fact that none of it mapped to reality;
I'm sure all fields that got GOV grants have the same death, once you have just a a few agencys approving the grants, ... well its called the peterson principal where out most incompetent become our decision makers;
Me thinks it time to return to patron based science where young smart people find a patron, and if that person doesn't produce then patron pulls the plug; With tenured colleges and papers the only meaningful means of measuring 'value'
What other outcome you expect?
Well then there is pharma which was easy, so long as you could synthesize a working known treatment and get a patent and 20 year monopoly you were a golden boy, and got rich, but that too became an industry of death
Your ideas mesh with those of Eugyppius in these articles: What is wrong with The Science?
Reflections on the unnoticed revolution in our academic institutions that took root in the middle of the 20th century and is steadily wringing all that is original, interesting and good out of them.
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/what-is-wrong-with-the-science and https://www.eugyppius.com/p/more-on-what-is-wrong-with-the-science
This is pretty interesting. It seems as if science is not infallible to similar social hierarchies as other fields in that there tends to be a few who do extremely well while others scatter about with much less. It's similar to YouTube or any social media platform, including Substack, where most authors will struggle to get readers and subscribers while larger ones will continue to grow. Essentially, many things appear to follow a Pareto distribution much to the chagrin of the smaller fish.
I think what makes science rather interesting is the dynamic between the public, researchers, and industry. Consider that most of the research that gets funding tends to be research that the public wants such as cancer, HIV, and Alzheimer's research. The field of Alzheimer's seems like it needs to look back into the literature given that one of the most widely cited articles actually appeared to have been subject to blot manipulation. And yet, at the same time two immunotherapies have been rushed for approval with limited information because the public demands a treatment for Alzheimer's.
This also comes with the fact that the media will take a study and misrepresent or misinterpret its findings, which can then sway public perception even further.
There is hope. I know that a lot of people are down on the direction of everything going badly, but if we survive this moment, and the blockchain innovations deliver on the rerouting of...money...then a more natural equilibrium can be restored.
One problem is that most papers are written by PhDs and not by people that have worked 30 years in the field. The PhDs also have to follow the existing theory environment, and are very biased to belief in these theories. They do not learn to break existing things to advance science.
Just as an example, I found out after 30 years that the theory of Quantum Mechanics was actually falsified by experiment (by Eric Reiter). It was one of the fields I studied a lot for micro/nano-technology. And I was excited about phenomena (like superconductivity) that were related to it. Here is my article on it: https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/quantum-physics-has-been-falsified
By looking at the actual physical evidence and logic, I became somehow an expert in discovering false paradigms within science. Often this is easier by an outsider than insider, due to the bias in the field.
So the solution is to look at the actual physical observations without any bias. And try to falsify your theories and fundamentals each time when you are ably to make new observations.
Hypothesis: Centralizing the purse strings leads to a competition for funding, and a gamed/narcissistic competition for funding.
Hypothesis: Centralizing the purse strings means centralizing the rewards, too. We see economic growth slowing, which is downstream of scientific progress.
Reports are the product science is pushing? Sounds like a lot of U>S> engineering firs of late. Shame on the guy who created the computer printer!
Now that the woke and non-binary will be given preference for grad school and med school I'm sure new papers with radical perspective will be on the horizon
IMHO Physics died like +30 years ago with string theory, everybody was doing it, all else was ignored, nobody could draw attention to the fact that none of it mapped to reality;
I'm sure all fields that got GOV grants have the same death, once you have just a a few agencys approving the grants, ... well its called the peterson principal where out most incompetent become our decision makers;
Me thinks it time to return to patron based science where young smart people find a patron, and if that person doesn't produce then patron pulls the plug; With tenured colleges and papers the only meaningful means of measuring 'value'
What other outcome you expect?
Well then there is pharma which was easy, so long as you could synthesize a working known treatment and get a patent and 20 year monopoly you were a golden boy, and got rich, but that too became an industry of death