[softwaredoug]

To steel man this move

You could argue peer review has become a mechanism to encourage incrementalism. That it doesn’t reward big leaps. And the public isn’t getting ROI on science funding compared to 50 years ago.

Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants - some might say theology - of the field. It’s basically a cartel for keeping a field of study alive, regardless of its value. True innovation happens when people collaborate outside their fields.

Steelman aside, there probably are better ways to solve this problem systematically than just let a politically appointee have final say. If we were serious about this problem, smart people thinking about scientific policy probably have some great ideas that are not being listened to.

[guax]

> Peer review is a closed system of expertise that doesn’t let you challenge the core tenants

Strong claims require strong evidence. The tenants some people want to challenge are climate change, gender identity, renewable energy, vaccinations, etc.

So its a hard bargain, I believe science benefits from being a bit stubborn.

[Auracle]

Alzheimer’s research would probably be the easiest one to point to.

And I’d argue all fields could use more dissenting opinions and new options. I don’t know if this would be the path to that but keep in mind there have been many things historically where someone needed to take a leap of faith to go against the current dogma.

[guax]

Academia is full of dissenting opinions, it is the wet dream of any tenured professor to break tradition and create a new field or area of research and become the lead in it.

Consensus is a thing, but science is not one institution, is a bunch of different warring factions of people trying to get published and cited and funding.

[SubiculumCode]

This should be done by lessening the feasibility metric in grading grants. If you want to escape incrementalism, you have to not punish scientists who ask for funding to do hard things with a higher chance of failure.

[mold_aid]

>You could argue peer review has become a mechanism to encourage incrementalism. That it doesn’t reward big leaps. And the public isn’t getting ROI on science funding compared to 50 years ago.

Are you arguing that or not

Also: tenets

>some might say theology - of the field

Some might, I'm sure! Are you saying that?

[softwaredoug]

No I am steelmanning. Making the best version of the other argument.

https://www.lesswrong.com/w/steelmanning

Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea that science has stagnated. But I do not think this is the solution.

This is a case of correctly diagnosing the problem - but not actually having a real solution