National science funding might work if scientists were disbarred for publishing wrong studies too often or too flagrantly, or if they couldn't be verified at all.
Imagine Ancel Keyes being postumously stripped of his degrees and dishonoured, for example.
Imagine Jonathan Jarry M.Sc. having that M.Sc noped right off. Sorry, Science judge has ruled you incompetent. Dr. Ed Nuhfer? You're not a doctor, you're a fake. Dr. Patrick E. McKnight? Liar. Dr. Simone C. McKnight? Not a doctor, p < 0.00005. Dr. Phillip Ackerman? You're a useless screwup.
These people can barely be trusted to pilot a taxi, let alone a study.
For a little while, at least, "science" wouldn't be basically unreliable.
2 comments:
Who are the patients or clients of scientists? All of society.
In a real society, any individual would be able to sue a scientist for malpractice if they propagate demonstrably false information. Strict liability applies; such well-paid folk should be held to a higher standard than usual, not a lower one.
The converse is also interesting. Someone who cannot be sued for malpractice in this way is not a scientist. More precisely, can be safely assumed [not a scientist] without extraordinary evidence to the contrary.
God I wish. In basedworld this will be how we do it.
Post a Comment