My claim is that, in the absence of adopting any reforms to how science is done, I would still expect this percentage to be much closer to 2N than to zero. I interpret the statement “science is broken” as saying, “the percentage will be epsilon”, and thus I do not believe that science is broken.
Of course, if you interpret “science is broken” to mean “science isn’t moving quite as fast as it could be”, then I’d probably agree with you.
With respect to how I interpret that phrase, the honest answer is that as with most such terminological disputes, I mostly don’t think it matters.
Put a different way… if I can choose between two systems for arriving at useful beliefs about the world, S1 and S2, and S1 is measurably more efficient at converting resources into useful beliefs, then all else being equal, I should adopt S1. Whether the labels “science” and/or “broken” properly apply to S1 and/or S2 doesn’t change that, nor AFAICT does it change anything else I care about.
The OP laid out some differences between two systems, one of which is science as done today, and suggested that the other system was measurably more efficient at converting resources into useful beliefs.
Back at the start of this exchange, I thought you were taking issue with that suggestion. As near as I can figure out at this point, I was simply incorrect; your concerns lie entirely with whether the other system should be labelled “science” and whether the first system should be labelled “broken”. I honestly don’t care… I think it’s important to have consistent definitions for these terms if we’re going to use them at all, but now that you’ve provided clear definitions I’m happy to use yours. It follows that both systems are science and neither is broken.
The OP laid out some differences between two systems, one of which is science as done today, and suggested that the other system was measurably more efficient at converting resources into useful beliefs.
I would also say that, while the other system is indeed “more efficient at converting resources into useful beliefs”, it’s not so very different from the original system, both in terms of structure and in terms of performance. Thus, unlike (I think) Luke, I see no particular burning need to drop everything we’re doing and begin the conversion process.
My claim is that, in the absence of adopting any reforms to how science is done, I would still expect this percentage to be much closer to 2N than to zero. I interpret the statement “science is broken” as saying, “the percentage will be epsilon”, and thus I do not believe that science is broken.
Of course, if you interpret “science is broken” to mean “science isn’t moving quite as fast as it could be”, then I’d probably agree with you.
I would agree with that claim as well.
With respect to how I interpret that phrase, the honest answer is that as with most such terminological disputes, I mostly don’t think it matters.
Put a different way… if I can choose between two systems for arriving at useful beliefs about the world, S1 and S2, and S1 is measurably more efficient at converting resources into useful beliefs, then all else being equal, I should adopt S1. Whether the labels “science” and/or “broken” properly apply to S1 and/or S2 doesn’t change that, nor AFAICT does it change anything else I care about.
The OP laid out some differences between two systems, one of which is science as done today, and suggested that the other system was measurably more efficient at converting resources into useful beliefs.
Back at the start of this exchange, I thought you were taking issue with that suggestion. As near as I can figure out at this point, I was simply incorrect; your concerns lie entirely with whether the other system should be labelled “science” and whether the first system should be labelled “broken”. I honestly don’t care… I think it’s important to have consistent definitions for these terms if we’re going to use them at all, but now that you’ve provided clear definitions I’m happy to use yours. It follows that both systems are science and neither is broken.
I would also say that, while the other system is indeed “more efficient at converting resources into useful beliefs”, it’s not so very different from the original system, both in terms of structure and in terms of performance. Thus, unlike (I think) Luke, I see no particular burning need to drop everything we’re doing and begin the conversion process.