Replies

Thank you so much for your reply!

I would like to know what ongoing research should be cancelled, and by what replaced.

Personally, I'm more interested in what should be added to the current research.

Your posts strongly suggest that something is wrong with the practice of science.

I do have some complaints about the practice of science (and math):

1. The current method of funding puts the scientist in the position of having to do the work of accountants - preparing proposals for grants, reporting back and so on. If they wanted to be accountants, they would have studied that. There needs to be a more efficient method of administering the funds so the scientists can spend the maximum time doing science.

2. Scientists are forced into a gauntlet of peer review to publish. Einstein and Darwin neither were required to do this and several Nobel prize winners were originally rejected. (Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?) IMHO, the publications which are rejected for content need an outlet to encourage the innovative thinkers.

3. Scientists who promote their own political, social or ideological agenda should be labeled accordingly (a disclaimer) so that consumers, grant makers, alumni, etc. will know the difference. This is generally done for all scientists in the Intelligent Design and YEC ranks - but Pinker, Lewontin and Singer also come to mind.

4. There needs to be more generalists in science. Everything has become so specialized that the bark on the trees are screaming to us and yet nobody seems to be able to capture the entire forest since the early 1900’s – the Godels, Einsteins, Heisenbergs, etc.

5. Science either needs to quit making theological pronouncements altogether – or step into it with both feet, giving equal consideration to both the atheist view and the intelligent design view.