If you haven’t already, you should read Michael Nielsen’s posts on open science. His book “Reinventing Discovery” has been discussed on LW before. Also, the polymath wiki has a lot of different posts on improving science.
There are lots of other resources on improving science that I’ve come across (and am still synthesizing). I think the links above are the best writings I’ve found on the subject.
I got my PhD and looked at my options. I love differential geometry, general relativity, and particle physics. But the only options available then for a postdoc in those combined areas were in string theory, and I thought string theory was overly speculative. There are many really impressive aspects of strings — anomaly cancelation in particular — but there are other things that just seem wild and physically unsubstantiated. I had gotten lucky by investing my graduate stipend in a little company many thought was going out of business (AAPL), so I decided to go to Maui, learn to windsurf, and work on physics on my own
Science Hostels:
The physical requirements for conducting scholarly research have changed dramatically with the rise of the internet. It is now viable for researchers with laptop computers to work autonomously – with access to current articles and communication channels on par with the resources available at large universities. These new circumstances motivate the creation of a new kind of research enterprise: a Science Hostel. By providing places to live and work with other researchers, in beautiful locations, a Science Hostel could increase creative productivity and overall quality of life for scholars in the internet age.[45]
Many thanks for the links! I did read some of Nielsen’s stuff yesterday (via a link someone else posted here), which I find very interesting. I’ll continue to look into this.
This stuff is very important: as Bostrom points out in this article—http://www.nickbostrom.com/views/science.pdf—you can probably do more for the world if you’re a really succesful “meta-scientists” (who improves the methods or institutions of science) than you can do if you’re a really succesful “first-order scientist” (e.g. physicist). Given that the present institutions of science are far from ideal, as I see it, there is much room for improvement here.
If you haven’t already, you should read Michael Nielsen’s posts on open science. His book “Reinventing Discovery” has been discussed on LW before. Also, the polymath wiki has a lot of different posts on improving science.
There are lots of other resources on improving science that I’ve come across (and am still synthesizing). I think the links above are the best writings I’ve found on the subject.
Another interesting link.
Science Hostels:
EDIT: Here’s a link to another related LW post.
Many thanks for the links! I did read some of Nielsen’s stuff yesterday (via a link someone else posted here), which I find very interesting. I’ll continue to look into this.
This stuff is very important: as Bostrom points out in this article—http://www.nickbostrom.com/views/science.pdf—you can probably do more for the world if you’re a really succesful “meta-scientists” (who improves the methods or institutions of science) than you can do if you’re a really succesful “first-order scientist” (e.g. physicist). Given that the present institutions of science are far from ideal, as I see it, there is much room for improvement here.
Science hostels—what a lovely idea! :)