A government-administered grant system provides the lion's share of funds for scientific research. Nevertheless, generous financial support is a double-edged sword. It gave rise to a robust scientific community and boosted the number and quality of scientific discoveries, but it also created a conservative scientific hierarchy. Anchoring professional careers to accepted beliefs turns people antagonistic to meaningful change. Therefore, top researchers are increasingly unhappy with the grant writing process and the subjectivity of evaluation. The future of science depends on scientists' ability to bring science into the public conversation. Because taxpayers fund the grant system, the public should have the opportunity to see the results of their tax money. Therefore, institutions accepting various public funds should host regular Open University events. An Open University event presents scientific progress in a conference format, enabling scientists and the public to familiarize themselves and engage in current research. This program should ameliorate the persistent skepticism of science and the tendency for conspiracy theories. For example, Open University events could have made the public more favorable to the vaccine rollout during the Covid 19.
How could science be different?
Strong critical essay, great ideas. Congratulations!
Dear colleague:
You complain in great detail and quite understandably about the organizational structure of the sciences, especially their funding. But that is well known. What are the deeper causes? How can this be changed by the scientists? Doesn't it seem to be enough for the scientific community to point this out to policymakers? Is it perhaps not new at all? Haven't scientists always had to deal with strange and capricious funding sources? Is perhaps the problem not a lack, but an abundance of money that stifles creativity and attracts all sorts of freeloaders?
You bemoan current physics and its alienation from the public. But isn't good science always an alienation from the public, i.e. the common opinion? If you yourself state that there can be only very few discoverers like Newton and Einstein, why are you surprised that there are so many weak approaches, you call multiverses and branes? Weak theories like astrology at the time of Newton or the ether theory at the time of Einstein are perhaps the humus which a genius needs to develop a strong idea.
In contrast to the "Califonian ideology" you deplore, however, you also quarrel with established science, which bites away new ideas, of which you bring many examples. On many scientific fields, you mention "Brains Initiatives" and AI, you express your own point of view, what should be considered or what could be critical. But in your whole essay, besides all these essentially negative evaluations of the current state, you don't find a positive statement about what you want to do. Which concrete scientific idea do you want to explore, at which point are you convinced of a brilliant breakthrough? And why? As you have shown with Albert Einstein mentioned several times: You don't need a perfectly functioning scientific establishment for ingenious ideas; it also works in a provincial Bernese office.
Hi ScarletAnteater
Following is a summary and review of your essay performed by AI Chat GPT 4. I've provided it for you to demonstrate the theme of my essay, that AI will play a role in the future of peer review. My essay is titled "Age of Knowledge"
I hope you enjoy this review of your work.
Chat GPT 4
The essay discusses the grant system in science and its impact on scientific research. It explains how the grant system has led to an unprecedented scientific renaissance in the twentieth century, but top researchers are increasingly unhappy with the status quo. The grant system undermines long-term thinking and discourages intellectual risk-taking, which stifles creativity. It also favors well-established institutes and mainstream ideas, making it almost impossible to receive funding for interdisciplinary research. Theoretical physics has arrived at an impasse, entertaining bizarre ideas that discourage the general public's interest in the sciences.
The essay highlights the need to heal skepticism and uncertainty that permeates our concept of reality. It suggests that forward-thinking solutions and breakthroughs require detailed knowledge and persistent focus on the field needing a solution. The common theme in creative inspirations is openness.
The essay is well-written and presents compelling arguments about the current state of science and the grant system's impact on scientific research. It provides a unique perspective and suggests ways to improve the grant system to foster creativity, intellectual risk-taking, and long-term thinking. Overall, the essay is of high quality and provides valuable insights into the current state of science.
This essay argues that all scientific findings are bound up with human culture, and the use of professional jargon within the scientific community only reinforces the separation between scientists and the general public. This separation can lead to intellectual isolation in science, where the field becomes static and unfriendly to fresh ideas, and researchers are discouraged from changing research direction. The essay suggests that taking an idea in one context and applying it to another possibility often introduces a broader view, leading to associative thinking and the flexibility to change one's mind. The essay also emphasizes the importance of cultivating mutual respect between scientists and the public to combat the "Ivory Tower" mentality that causes resentment from a skeptical public. Finally, the essay argues that understanding consciousness is necessary to satisfy the innate human desire for a unified existence and to make science more accessible to the average person. Overall, the essay provides an insightful perspective on the relationship between science and culture and the importance of promoting inclusivity and openness in scientific research.
Quality rating: Good. The essay provides a thoughtful and well-articulated argument and is supported by examples and references to historical figures and contemporary scientific initiatives.
Chat GPT 4
Dear ScarletAnteater,
Well written, interesting essay and highly commendable.
I really appreciate your views and suggestions. “There is a hidden drive toward safe science … as proposals with predictable outcomes are more likely to receive funding. Funding uncertainties also channel academic careers toward ‘popular’ research areas”.
However, not only words should lead to an unconditional and reasoned change in science, but first of all, tendentious explanations of experimental facts that suit, as the author writes, “safe science”, "so people are willing to devise convoluted explanations to salvage the established theory". However, this has not been sufficiently addressed in this essay. A few striking examples could be a much more significant argument for the transformation of science.
I wish you success!
Vladimir Rogozhin Thank you for your kind feedback!
Arved Huebler Thank you for raising a valid point on "freeloaders" in science. However, freeloaders, as you call them, can work the system to their advantage due to their position or connections, which supports my argument. The proposed Open University events provide a path toward openness and mutual understanding. Openness to new ideas will inspire new idea formation.
Steven Andresen Thank you! I enjoyed the insightful feedback from Chat GPT 4!
Vladimir Fedorov Thank you for providing feedback on my essay! You wanted examples for the "convoluted explanations." The first one is the Big Bang theory's failure of experimental data, which inspired the "inflation theory" as a salvage theory. Another example is Orchestrated Reduction of Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules, which lacks explanatory power and experimental verification. Still, the founders and proponents of the theory keep finding bizarre possible paths toward verification.
I appreciate your encouragement!
You have to think big!
It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!
You have to think big!
The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [ appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf
https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2304#control_panel ].
Thank you for making a point. The fine structure constant's value is indeed a puzzle, but it is not related to my essay.
not necessarely adressing this essay in general concerning a linguistic/ language issue the refinment with words
let say a word can be broken /split in two concepts/ (especially while" learning" learning)
for example the mind has an intelligence and a conscioussnes
mind is(intelligence and conscioussness)
but lets say a person grows up never to make this difference
it is not like the difference do not exist just that is creating (semantinc gradient field that is integrating push the component notions closer ) that is different (not necesarely bad or less scientific)
Do semantic gradients reflect external constructs or internal mental reality? What you suggest would support but not necessarily prove the second scenario.