/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14557851
It is simple.

Instead of giving them money always, give them money when they discover/develope something.

>>14557851
You're playing Jenga with Tesla. He reminds you that pulling a single beam out from beneath any combination of block will cause catastrophic collapse. Sweat starts forming on your brow because you think he may be right. But look! There are only two blocks above it! Surely Tesla hasn't accounted for /every/ hypothesis! You feel like the two-block hypothesis is worth testing. Maybe, just maybe, science got it wrong.

You pull the single block and the tower collapses. You suffer a moment of elation because clearly this means you won, right? The tower collapsed, that's a win, right? Everybody knows Jenga, this is definitely a win.

You take a seat in your ivory tower, which is now conveniently scattered across the floor.

>>14557859
So they'll just churn out a bunch of wrong, irreplicable, politician/business-funded crap for money?

Any other bright ideas Einstein?

>>14557894
Fire them, deport them, and gas them all.

If the service is always shit, why do you keep employing them?

>>14557859
I don't know how this could work. You could say, withhold funds until it's verified, but we all know at this point that colleagues just jerk each other off.

>>14557924
Yeah, I think reward has failed. We need actual consequences for publishing faulty bullshit.

>>14557933
You don't know what's faulty~

Jenga, fools.

>>14557965
Actually, we pretty frequently do. It's not just incompetence. A large part of faulty science in our times is actual malice.

Quit funding science with taxpayer money.
If scientists are required to produce something that people are willing to pay for in a free market it will force them to quit doing their useless masturbatory soience.

>>14557993
That doesn't help either. Then corporations just fund everything and we've seen how that goes also. We need actual punishment. Not merely a withdrawal of reward.

>>14557933
>We need actual consequences for publishing faulty bullshit.
How do you control the controller?

>>14557999
Corporations currently receive government subsidies as well, which is how they're able to sacrifice profits to push woke shit without going out of business.

>>14557974
You don't know the nature of what you're trying to invest in.

>>14557999
>Then corporations just fund everything and we've seen how that goes also.
I don't want the thread to escalate in /pol/ fuckery even if i'm pro-market myself, but i think he's right.
In the end the state doesn't behave differently from corrupted corporations sucking taxpayer money, they fund whetever it likes just to increase in power, and unlike a private company you can't just stop giving money to the state.

Let the market do its thing, if they actually care about their jobs they must come up with something useful to make profit.

>>14558010
That's why I'm thinking funding is not the issue, as I said. I think actual punishment is required. There are always any number of funding sources for scammers and frauds. It's fucking jail time that stops them. Bad soientists need some equal level of punishment for publishing shit they know is false or contrarian to get attention. I don't know how modern science has done it, but we've reached this bizaree lovecraftian hell where everyone is a circlejerking conformist, but every individual is also as contrarian as possible. It seems impossible that this could exist, but it also neatly explains why we have such a mess of noncohesive theories in every single scientific field right now, with most of them never getting questioned, even if contradictory.

>>14558030
That's some stupid libertarian nonsense. The free market is literally why we have this problem. Researchers just publishing whatever their funders want is literally a large chunk of the problem.

>>14558033
So then the question is, why are their funders willing to pay money for useless research?

>>14558030
>you can't just stop giving money to the state
Yes you can and people have been successful in doing so. We can talk logistics, but as a scientist I'm not going to filter out crime from the phenomenological pool.