Hi everyone, In today’s new podcast episode, Jay Bhattacharya and Matthew Crawford discuss the corruption of science and the challenges it faces in the modern era. They explore the transformation of science from a small-scale, individual pursuit to a large-scale, corporate enterprise. They highlight the politicization of science and the influence of external entities on scientific research. The conversation also delves into the replication crisis in science and the need for reform. They propose alternative models, such as a review culture, to encourage independent thinking and foster a healthier scientific community. Jay Bhattacharya discusses the productivity of science, the centralization of science and politics, and the potential for decentralization as a solution. He highlights the challenge of attention and pre-selection in scientific research and the markers of quality in science. Bhattacharya also explores the advantages and disadvantages of centralized and decentralized models in science.
I don’t think the majority of people actually understand how crucial this issue truly is. A study that cannot be replicated is just a “theory”, yet we’re treating it as a “truth”. If the laws of physics were treated in a similar manner, airplanes would be falling out of the skies (oh, wait...).
Brilliant and insightful conversation. What a conversation between scientists should be. I'm sure that 95% of the population will have neither the interest nor the patience, but I'm enthralled and look forward to finishing this.
Matthew R. Crawford & Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Thank you for this discussion / delineation on the practice of science. To add my 2 cents.
'SCIENCE' (French 'scier' = 'to saw') as in multiple angled strikes or cuts as in the variated teeth of a saw simultaneously applied to 'interdisciplinary' analysis. One dimension of the HOLISTIC science of the study of reality or 'real factors', is its place on infinite macrocosm & microcosm scales or whether results can be replicated across multiple 'Fractal' ('Fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole') scales. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/6-holistic-science
Missing in today's FALSE science is the autonomous economic livelihood of the scientist & 'community' (Latin 'com' = 'together' + 'munus' = 'gift-or-service'), which her or his acquired knowledge & findings serve. When the so-called 'scientist' has been dumbed-down by subservience or economic survival within a hierarchal 'exogenous' (L. 'other-generated') Oligarch commanded & controlled system, her or his findings are perverted by submission. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/9-undoing-false-science
All humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (L. 'self-generating') people & communities empowered people fractally from the bottom-up, particularly in the ~100 (50-150) person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village). Today 70% of people live in Multihomes but have little knowledge of the ancient indigenous systems of economic individual & collective organization & empowerment as once known worldwide in the Indigenous Circle-of-Life. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
Missing from our false 'education' (L. 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within') system is the autonomy of the student, to which Socrates as the founder of 'Academia' made 'Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published Dialogue (Dialectics) or 'Debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') as the core of both education & science. When individuals have the right within their communities, schools, workplaces, commerces, governments etc. to raise issues & to have 'Both-sided' dialogues for creating understanding, agreements & for Conflict Resolution. BOTH-SIDES-NOW is an easy to use dialogue process. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
Very good discussion. Got me to subscribe. See Dr. Iain McGilchrist's discussion of peer review corruption in his masterly book, The Matter With Things. That's where I learned how peer reviewers may get paid for a good review, and also how often really bad papers are accepted for publication. It's a broken system and needs reformation. But who is listening? The general public seems to believe that a paper that isn't peer reviewed is bunk.
Great observation regarding science being social. Part of the current crisis might be coming to terms with the idea of objective truth and the assumption that all of reality can be explored objectively. Which ties into the social aspect, in some way we are building a consensus reality, illusionary or not.
The other ramification of the social aspect is that the mess that science is in might be a symptom and not a root cause that can be simply fixed by decentralization or other means. The root cause more likely to be social breakdown (unhealthy and broken relationships at multiple levels) and limits of current mainstream world view (meaningless random universe).
It is possible to do science without approval - if you are doing completely new science, or science that is not studied by the establishment, The problem is getting recognized by the establishment. I have completed over 6 years study of the Theory of Cure and over that time, I have made many new discoveries, created new definitions and words necessary for a scientific study of cure. I publish my papers on open servers - Researchgate and Academia and books on Amazon - one of which is currently (still) blocked from publication by Amazon's COVID policies. If you ask Bing or Google about "theory of cure" my name (Tracy Kolenchuk) is at the top of the the list of current theorists. I am at the top - because there are no competitors. I have no peers, so I have no competitors. Peer review of my research is not possible at present. Several years ago, I submitted a paper to a Philosophy of Science publication and was told they were unable to find peer reviewers. Note: I can do theoretical studies of cure and individual studies of cure on myself, but doing studies of cure on other people is forbidden - not by science, but by the medical establishment. However, if you ask 99.9999 percent of people in the medical sciences or medical profession about the theory of cure. Maybe I need to die for my work to be recognized? Maybe I should apply for a research grant?
Thank you for the Illuminating conversation. One comment on peer reviewing: is it not socially inherent to the process that deviating ideas are not favored? Indeed, more competition between (pre-or post-) reviewers could make it more attractive and feasible to leave average opinion behind.
Very much fits my own views (for better or worse!). I agree on the review after publish that Jay proposes. This puts ideas out for all time to be reassessed (though I agree about the Niagara of publications of which one can but take an occasional sip). The possible corruption could come by disruptive agents flooding those open servers with junk papers. I think we have to do it and tune the system as it develops.
How would you interpret the unpredictable success of the indie film, The Sound of Freedom? Might it correlate with "fringe" scientific thought and decentralization?
Amazingly, I was able to keep up with the speakers. This type of collaboration of ideas should start early in school to show how science is always metamorphosing and by collaborating with the community ideas, gives a purpose and meaning to what most people think of as a dry topic.
I don’t think the majority of people actually understand how crucial this issue truly is. A study that cannot be replicated is just a “theory”, yet we’re treating it as a “truth”. If the laws of physics were treated in a similar manner, airplanes would be falling out of the skies (oh, wait...).
t.co/AeadUbId3e
Brilliant and insightful conversation. What a conversation between scientists should be. I'm sure that 95% of the population will have neither the interest nor the patience, but I'm enthralled and look forward to finishing this.
Matthew R. Crawford & Dr Jay Bhattacharya, Thank you for this discussion / delineation on the practice of science. To add my 2 cents.
'SCIENCE' (French 'scier' = 'to saw') as in multiple angled strikes or cuts as in the variated teeth of a saw simultaneously applied to 'interdisciplinary' analysis. One dimension of the HOLISTIC science of the study of reality or 'real factors', is its place on infinite macrocosm & microcosm scales or whether results can be replicated across multiple 'Fractal' ('Fraction, multiplier, building-block, where-the-part-contains-the-whole') scales. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/6-holistic-science
Missing in today's FALSE science is the autonomous economic livelihood of the scientist & 'community' (Latin 'com' = 'together' + 'munus' = 'gift-or-service'), which her or his acquired knowledge & findings serve. When the so-called 'scientist' has been dumbed-down by subservience or economic survival within a hierarchal 'exogenous' (L. 'other-generated') Oligarch commanded & controlled system, her or his findings are perverted by submission. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/9-undoing-false-science
Indigenous Mentored Apprenticeship as Learning systems guaranteed the autonomy of the learner as a valued contributor. Complementary elder expertise, matched with youthful inquiry & innovation. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/4-apprenticeship-education as well as the Vision-Quest of each sovereign person. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-paricipatory-structure/8-vision-quest-education
All humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (L. 'self-generating') people & communities empowered people fractally from the bottom-up, particularly in the ~100 (50-150) person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse-apartment, Pueblo-townhouse & Kanata-village). Today 70% of people live in Multihomes but have little knowledge of the ancient indigenous systems of economic individual & collective organization & empowerment as once known worldwide in the Indigenous Circle-of-Life. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/a-home/3-indigenous-circle-of-life
Missing from our false 'education' (L. 'educare' = 'to-lead-forth-from-within') system is the autonomy of the student, to which Socrates as the founder of 'Academia' made 'Both-sided, Equal-time, Recorded & Published Dialogue (Dialectics) or 'Debate' (French 'de' = 'undo' + 'bate' = 'the-fight') as the core of both education & science. When individuals have the right within their communities, schools, workplaces, commerces, governments etc. to raise issues & to have 'Both-sided' dialogues for creating understanding, agreements & for Conflict Resolution. BOTH-SIDES-NOW is an easy to use dialogue process. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/d-participatory-structure/1-both-sides-now-equal-time-recorded-dialogues
Very good discussion. Got me to subscribe. See Dr. Iain McGilchrist's discussion of peer review corruption in his masterly book, The Matter With Things. That's where I learned how peer reviewers may get paid for a good review, and also how often really bad papers are accepted for publication. It's a broken system and needs reformation. But who is listening? The general public seems to believe that a paper that isn't peer reviewed is bunk.
It’s also a reductive process of always pursuing the analysis of the analysis, instead of daring to zoom out.
When I learned that CERN is looking for a God particle, first what came to my mind was that they may isolate a Satan particle instead.
Did CERN find it and freed it upon us?
Check out the satanic ritual performed at cern, on YouTube 😤
Great observation regarding science being social. Part of the current crisis might be coming to terms with the idea of objective truth and the assumption that all of reality can be explored objectively. Which ties into the social aspect, in some way we are building a consensus reality, illusionary or not.
The other ramification of the social aspect is that the mess that science is in might be a symptom and not a root cause that can be simply fixed by decentralization or other means. The root cause more likely to be social breakdown (unhealthy and broken relationships at multiple levels) and limits of current mainstream world view (meaningless random universe).
Yes, decentralization!
Very relevant podcast that talks about Decentralized Science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zspFrtqZmhs
And ResearchHub, the platform being referenced in the podcast:
https://www.researchhub.com/
It is possible to do science without approval - if you are doing completely new science, or science that is not studied by the establishment, The problem is getting recognized by the establishment. I have completed over 6 years study of the Theory of Cure and over that time, I have made many new discoveries, created new definitions and words necessary for a scientific study of cure. I publish my papers on open servers - Researchgate and Academia and books on Amazon - one of which is currently (still) blocked from publication by Amazon's COVID policies. If you ask Bing or Google about "theory of cure" my name (Tracy Kolenchuk) is at the top of the the list of current theorists. I am at the top - because there are no competitors. I have no peers, so I have no competitors. Peer review of my research is not possible at present. Several years ago, I submitted a paper to a Philosophy of Science publication and was told they were unable to find peer reviewers. Note: I can do theoretical studies of cure and individual studies of cure on myself, but doing studies of cure on other people is forbidden - not by science, but by the medical establishment. However, if you ask 99.9999 percent of people in the medical sciences or medical profession about the theory of cure. Maybe I need to die for my work to be recognized? Maybe I should apply for a research grant?
to your health, tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure
https://www.amazon.com/NEW-Theory-Cure-Tracy-Kolenchuk/dp/B099BYN91J
Paper: https://www.academia.edu/95696376/Theory_of_Cure_2023_Update
Thank you for the Illuminating conversation. One comment on peer reviewing: is it not socially inherent to the process that deviating ideas are not favored? Indeed, more competition between (pre-or post-) reviewers could make it more attractive and feasible to leave average opinion behind.
.
For Doctors Of Medicine:
This Is Not A Crisis Of Identity;
This Is Not A Crisis Of Competence
( ... There Is Too Little To Matter) ;
This Is A Crisis Of Conscience.
.
Very much fits my own views (for better or worse!). I agree on the review after publish that Jay proposes. This puts ideas out for all time to be reassessed (though I agree about the Niagara of publications of which one can but take an occasional sip). The possible corruption could come by disruptive agents flooding those open servers with junk papers. I think we have to do it and tune the system as it develops.
Here is an outstanding example of how very disruptive independent studies can be to our institutions. What would you do with this one?
"Beyond Einstein: non-local physics, 5 th ed"
https://www.academia.edu/94182990/Beyond_Einstein_non_local_physics_5_th_ed
24:00 The MLM of knowledge and "science"
How would you interpret the unpredictable success of the indie film, The Sound of Freedom? Might it correlate with "fringe" scientific thought and decentralization?
Amazingly, I was able to keep up with the speakers. This type of collaboration of ideas should start early in school to show how science is always metamorphosing and by collaborating with the community ideas, gives a purpose and meaning to what most people think of as a dry topic.
haha ha have not heard any reference to Ishtar in a lifetime. really enjoyed listening to you both in this interesting conversation thank you