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.

I can't entirely disagree with you, but no one has to run a gauntlet to publish. You have to run the gauntlet if you want to publish in a gauntlet approved publication.

There will always be occasional revolutionary ideas skipped over (temporarily), but by and large science is incremental rather than revolutionary. Good data must be explained by any theory, and any new theory must explain all the data, plus suggesting new and fruitful lines of research.

Einstein was not dealt an easy hand. The Nazis tried to destroy him. "One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein" was the name of an official pamphlet. Such things can slow progress but not stop it.

The physicist who has to be an accountant is probably past his productive prime and is managing grad students already. Science should be done the way it is done and always used to be done.

Newton destroyed the careers of many along the way to preeminence. Robert Hooke {the discoverer of the law of gravity} never recovered from the personal attack. Newton also hung over 100 men for counterfeiting. Amazing that Newton could get so much done while attending to such details.

Competition brings out the best and the worst. May the last one standing be the best. Best scientist or best something else.

Sometimes you get Copernicus who lives in his ivory tower for 30 years, sometimes you get Tycho Brahe who jumps right in with both left feet. Sometimes you get Schopenhauer who combines the ivory tower with the two left feet. Point is, there are all kinds and always have been, but most of the big contributors are essentially done by age 30 and then they become humdrum establishment fit to manage the accounts.