[tdaltonc]

I'm not sure that scientists need to be super objective for science to work. The history of science is so littered with grudges, feuds, and grit in spite of evidence that it's hard to see the ground of objective rationality that many assert is behind it.

And pandemonium models [1] of computation show that the right rules of cummunication can produce astonishing order from chatic self interest. If scientst were forced to pre publish their methods and share all data -- science would probably work better. This is true even if this change had no effect on their behavior, or even if they made every effort to game the system.

This imrpovement to science doesn't ask a committee to define or measure anything ineffable, and it doesn't expect individuals to change thier behavior. It just changes the rule of interaction in a way that better favors the systems epistomological progress.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemonium_architecture

[TeMPOraL]

Objective scientists are a good thing, but are not - and should never be - considered an essencial component of the system. Any system that assumes honesty and fair play in its participants is doomed to failure. What science was aiming for is getting the true results from the aggregate - thus peer reviews, replication, etc.

Of course the more noise you have, the less efficient the system is, so it's good to incentivize people to do honest, objective work - thus pre-publishing / pre-registering, sharing data and algorithms, etc. are all good and important goals. But so should be changing the metric affecting the aggregate - like making sure scientists are actually incentivized to replicate previous work.