I think this very incrementalist, formulaic view of science that stresses replication, falsification and so on is in many ways broken. For one as Russ Ackoff used to point out, one cannot get what one wants by merely not doing the wrong thing. There is an infinite amount of false or uninteresting theories, and so you end up with Borges library of Babel, which in many ways is the status quo already of automated, bureaucratic science, which produces almost endless amounts of low impact research.
I think a better way to do science is not to rely on honesty or processes, but to do science with practical goals in mind and to be ambitious enough to produce results that will assert themselves by virtue of their impact.
The Manhattan Project, mentioned in an ethical context in the piece is to me a good example of a scientific project that did not rely on ordinary scientific veracity or processes, but on goal-oriented work with a positive rather than negative (in the technical sense of the term) result in mind, that one could simply not argue about. It also explains I think why a lot of cutting edge research today has moved into the corporate sector. Rather than being constrained by academic formalisms there is focus on novelty and big leaps.
the frequency of arguments about trust in science or honesty today to me is mostly an example of the absolutely low and marginal impact and irrelevance of much research. Operation Warp Speed for me is a good modern example of how science ought to be done. Very much not in the spirit of debate or scientific bureaucracy but by using new technology to pursue a goal where success or failure would be obvious.
I think a better way to do science is not to rely on honesty or processes, but to do science with practical goals in mind and to be ambitious enough to produce results that will assert themselves by virtue of their impact.
The Manhattan Project, mentioned in an ethical context in the piece is to me a good example of a scientific project that did not rely on ordinary scientific veracity or processes, but on goal-oriented work with a positive rather than negative (in the technical sense of the term) result in mind, that one could simply not argue about. It also explains I think why a lot of cutting edge research today has moved into the corporate sector. Rather than being constrained by academic formalisms there is focus on novelty and big leaps.
the frequency of arguments about trust in science or honesty today to me is mostly an example of the absolutely low and marginal impact and irrelevance of much research. Operation Warp Speed for me is a good modern example of how science ought to be done. Very much not in the spirit of debate or scientific bureaucracy but by using new technology to pursue a goal where success or failure would be obvious.