Funding true science is always a big problem. Main traditional sources of funding are in government sector. It’s a totally hierarchical and centralized approach. All pros and cons you know.
Funding isn’t only one problem. Scientific budgets (especially military) are enormous (big percentage of GDP). This money flows into wrong hands, not to those who make a real science.
The problem isn’t in funding directly, but it’s a complex of sub-problems:
- Agents // so-called scientific managers/organisations
- Plagiarism // Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal
- Failures // It often happens — to choose the wrong hypothesis
- Extremely expensive equipment // Large Hadron Collider, James webb, etc.
- Scientific papers publications // barriers, paywalls
- Ppl not related/involved into the science // misunderstanding
Can a “decentralised science” movement solve these difficult problems?
Nobody knows. It isn’t mainstream and even isn’t much spoken about.
Most ppl don’t know who a scientist is and what does he do.
The goal of a scientist is only one — to dig new knowledge of how universe works. // it’s hard to commercialize directly, grants are the main source of funding
Engineers are here to help, they can use scientific results to build new tech/products which are much better commercializable.
#desci is an abstract paradigm, nobody knows how it could help (don’t eat bs marketing). The idea of that decentralization is a magic and could solve all old problems is a big delusion. But it’s an opportunity, let’s use it.
What’s going on in the world?
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. — R. Buckminster Fuller
