51–56 of 56 posts
TLDR: some scientists are doing science by critiquing what some other scientists did, using statistics. The authors are a wee bit confused about the fact that science is needed to weed out the 'bad' science from the 'good' science.
Please, this is not even close to the content of the article.
This is an obviously biaised text by an author with a fundamentalist religious agenda. He cites all well-known and not at all surprising problems with peer review, which means that a sizeable proportion of published science is wrong -- wrong as in somewhat innaccurate and likely perfectible , and in now way as wrong as only religious ideas can be, i.e. completely false and unfounded. Asimov wrote a great essay about…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or you could take the anarcho-syndicalist approach and split the money evenly to the entire pool, with a lower bound on grant size which makes the money inconsequential and if the lower limit is reached require all grantees to contribute a portion of their time to growing the money pool.
Two problem with this idea. If you don’t have some sort of barrier to entry then anyone can apply for a grant. This funding is made available on the basis that it will be used for science. I know this sounds elitist (it is), but science is really hard and it takes many years of learning to reach the forefront of knowledge where you can actually make a contribution. You only want to give funding to those that can actu…
I addressed the second point in my original post but maybe that was unclear: if there are so many applicants that individual grants become too small to serve their purpose, you stop accepting applicants. But then you require the applicant pool to spend some portion of their time growing the grant pool until the waiting list is empty. Flipping burgers if need be. Although we're talking about PhDs so I am sure there are better ways to use that labor pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two problem with this idea. If you don’t have some sort of barrier to entry then anyone can apply for a grant. This funding is made available on the basis that it will be used for science. I know this sounds elitist (it is), but science is really hard and it takes many years of learning to reach the forefront of knowledge where you can actually make a contribution. You only want to give funding to those that can actu…
Under an anarcho-syndicalist system you don't need to worry what your neighbor does with their share. You have your share. If you want to work towards a common goal you need to convince them to work with you voluntarily. I addressed the second point in my original post but maybe that was unclear: if there are so many applicants that individual grants become too small to serve their purpose, you stop accepting applica…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under an anarcho-syndicalist system you don't need to worry what your neighbor does with their share. You have your share. If you want to work towards a common goal you need to convince them to work with you voluntarily. I addressed the second point in my original post but maybe that was unclear: if there are so many applicants that individual grants become too small to serve their purpose, you stop accepting applica…
Stopping the acceptance of potential grantees is just putting an inefficient barrier to entry of new people. The end result of limiting people rather than a base quality is that it would favour the old over the young which I don’t think is a good outcome.
As for favoring the old, all you have to do is require people to regularly re-apply. There's no reason you need to hop the line after the end of your term.
And you seem to be assuming that the waitlist will be prohibitively long, but the longer the waitlist the more labor you have for growing the grant pool, so it naturally self-regulates.
>>>First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society. I'm not quite sure what to think about the bias we might be seeing in this post from this site. This is quite a long essay and there's not a single link on a site that seems like it w…
Biased against what? Science? How long until we get rid of the 'religion is against science' narrative?