Eedat t1_irf4utu wrote
Reply to comment by MourningDark in “Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of knowledge.” How Karl Popper’s philosophy of science can overcome clinical corruption. by IAI_Admin
Nature has a bit of corruption at every level and humans are no different. Creating a system free of any corrupting at all is impossible. The goal is to create a system that limits it and has the capability to shoulder the weight of what does slip though
Leemour t1_irfky4p wrote
That requires massive amounts of energy and effort though. What you're talking about is entropy mitigation and in any system, working against entropy is energy intensive, so as long as we have a scarcity economy, we should think carefully about what and where we stop this "corruption" as you call it, because it could take up all our resources wastefully if we pick an energy hungry system to keep it from equilibrium.
LiamTheHuman t1_irft1cm wrote
So I think I understand what you are saying but maybe I'm missing something. Wouldn't the overgrowth of the corruption be just as or more dangerous than the risk of using excess resources to stop it? Like isn't the outcome we are all doomed either way?
Leemour t1_irfwv4y wrote
They're both scenarios where we push things to an extreme. As I see it (from a kind of Naturalist+Existentialist-I-Guess perspective based on my reading of Schrödinger's lectures on thermodynamics and more contemporary researchers who have posed existentialist questions) all things have this entropy nature in them, a pull towards disorder (don't read this as chaos), variation and ultimately a sort of dispersion. If we do nothing, everything will crumble, if we do everything we can to stop one thing from crumbling, then everything else will crumble faster: the key is to find the right amount of "push back" needed for the right things, the aim for the optimal instead of the ideal.
So any system we create will need reforms and changes, but there is no formula to "when", "how often" and "how extensively", besides it's something that a different generation needs to deal with anyway and we cannot predict what paradigms and context will be relevant in the future. Providing a framework for the means to make changes and giving a rational permission for occasional radicalism is how systems can overall preserve its function.
The way this relates to the OP is that since we have unprecedented, massive influx of new research publications, there is a lot that just goes kind of unchallenged, this is tied in with entropy, which gets "stronger" with "bigger numbers", so we can work against this by verifying the research in some way, but just how much resources put into this verification is worth when research is just getting more and more expensive? Currently the main form of this is by doing metastudies, which collect a bunch of relevant studies, critically studies their methods, results, impact on other researches, etc. to determine whether this was in some form verified, falsified or is suspiciously lacking. It is essentially doing science on science, and in many fields it seems to work just fine, though typically the criticism is that there isn't enough people doing this with enough resources, which I agree with, but I'd also add, that metastudies are hard to do because of the highly critical focus of it.
Overall, this OP is a bit dramatic, there is no real crisis, in the general scientific community, so no, scientists are not shacks (yet), but in some fields this has grown out of proportion (psychology and medicine namely) where a bit of change is needed or more frequent/sizable metastudies.
LiamTheHuman t1_irg01ms wrote
isn't the fact the the validity of recent papers is going down an indication that our balance of control over the entropy in the system is off? Like wouldn't the ideal state be that we have a growing system that maintains an equilibrium.
I suppose there could be an argument that the equilibrium point could be more permissive but if we think we are in a good state now or even that we are slightly in a bad state, isn't the only option to devote more resources to correct course?
I'm kind of just going where my mind takes me so take everything I said with a grain of salt
nicoco3890 t1_irg94th wrote
No. You are just flat out wrong here, you are using the term energy incorrectly, using both the colloquial meaning and physical meaning at the same time.
Entropy mitigation in a moral system is not an « energy intensive » process. No raw ressources are needed, no power consumed. No physical energy is needed nor wasted.
However, « mental energy », as ill defined as it is, is needed. But mental energy is not the correct term to use here either, but mental & moral fortitude is what you really mean.
This is fundamentally a cultural & psychological problem, not a ressources management problem. Ressource management may be one way to improve the problem, but it is not the solution, only an aspect of it.
Leemour t1_irgdcj9 wrote
I disagree, you need tangible resources to record, interpret and apply information. There is no process that perfectly and permanently records information, thus to just maintain fidelity, it requires analysis and re-recording of the information, but this assuming perfect formulation of information to begin with, which is also not the case. To deny this is unhelpful reductionism and culture is part of the problem, but by solving that the problem still stands.
nicoco3890 t1_irgm2ia wrote
I'm sorry, but you were the reductionist there. Objecting to the proposal of a system seeking to minimize corruption by stating it would be too ressource expensive, when in fact, in no way is the ressource cost a limiting or major factor here.
It is entirely possible for a society to exist without corruption without any records existing. It may be unrealistic in today's society, it does not mean it is impossible. As I said, ressource management is merely an aspect of the solution, better record-keeping is a plus, but they can always be falsified, numbers fudged, accounting mistakes made.
As for the example of corruption not existing despite any records keeping, you just have to think about a small hunter-gatherer community. What would corruption looks like in such a society? Assuming the existence of a patriarchal group with "traditionnal" hierarchy, an example of corruption would be a young hunter killing a prey, eating parts of the liver before bringing it back. This is corruption because the tribe leader would be the one to have first pick, and distribution rights over prized meat & offal. The youngin just bypassed that and declared that his arrow damaged the liver, hence why there is a part missing.
Corruption is a moral, conceptual problem, not a physical, material problem. It exists because there exist a predetermined code of conduct, rules to follow and social order, and that some people decide not to abide by it.
It is entirely a social problem, with ways to attempt to manage it that can manifest in the physical world, with records-keeping, but is not dependent on the existence of such records keeping, but purely on the moral fiber of the population.
If taking money from the coffers while you are in charge is the expected behavior in a society, can you really say you are being corrupt by doing it?
You can't just reduce corruption & fighting it to a material problem, when it is a much bigger problem of how human being acts in society & how this rewards him.
VitriolicViolet t1_irgn0hi wrote
lol right because our world gives 2 shits about resource efficiency, ah naivety is gold.
we couldnt careless about wasting resources, indeed our entire system is setup explicitly to waste resources accumulating capital.
'efficiency' as used by economists has never meant 'efficiency of resources distribution' it means 'efficiency of capital accumulation'.
in what possible way is burning 1000s of tons of food every year to maintain a floor price a efficient use of resources? it sure is an efficient way of generating 'value' but is one the most inefficient ways possible for handling food distribution.
our society has never cared about minimizing loss or waste, frankly its entirely fine with maximizing losses and waste if it makes private profit.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments