[Bluestein]

This is really really so necessary ...

If really pro science, some non-profit should really fund this sort of research.-

PS. Heck, if nothing else, it'd give synthetic intellection systems somewhere to not go with their research, and their agency and such ...

[timr]

Before tackling that, a non-profit should fund well-designed randomized controlled trials in areas where none exist. Which is most of them. Commit to funding and publishing the trial, regardless of outcome, once a cross-disciplinary panel of disinterested experts on trial statistics approve the pre-registered methodology. If there are too many qualified studies to fund, choose randomly.

This alone would probably kill off a lot of fraudulent science in areas like nutrition and psychology. It's what the government should be doing with NIH and NSF funding, but is not.

If you manage to get a good RCT through execution & publication, that should make your career, regardless of outcome.

[Bluestein]

> should fund well-designed randomized controlled trials in areas where none exist.

Indeed. That is the "baseline"-setting science, you are much correct.-