>>12131590Most of 'published science' is bolderdash but context is important.
There are still close knit groups of scientists working on important problems, even if they are just 'theoretical problems' real science is going on, who just see publishing as a 'need' to get money.
The real dangerous people are those who think BECAUSE they publish things they are an academic authority or 'smarter than thou'. These people are in science for the prestige, not curiosity.
The solution to this is to separate state and science.
>inb4 but all the expensive equipmentHow much equipment is actually needed if only REAL science is being done- hint- not the amount that is currently being bought/consumed. The problems facing science are not that of equipment but that of thought- how do we fix our models that are increasingly running contrary to observation? Collecting more evidence is always nice, but getting rid of state beauraucrats would cut required funding. eg the head of nasa earns 156000 dollars a year, are these people 'enthralled by science' or bureaucratic money lovers?
eg in uk if every taxpayer just gave £10 to a 'science pot' and there are probably 500 top notch physical scientists in the uk.
Thats 300 billion pounds for 500 people, minus 'living expenses' of 10,000 a year for each (-5000000) ie 299,500,000 pounds for research. But none of this admin bullcrap, no 'research objectives' or A4 length essays on why x is soso important to the economy. Hell these academics could fund their own bs free research institution with that sort of cash.
I think we should fund literal oil tankers to carry scientists into international waters, put labs in these tankers, local laws no longer apply. Renegade pirate scientists doing care free science in middle of atlantic ocean is future of science.
