I think it’s important not to conflate two separate issues.
The term ‘science’ is used to denote both the scientific method and also the social structure that performs science. It’s critical to separate these in ones mind.
What you call “idealistic science” is the scientific method; what you call “social network” science is essentially a human construct aimed at getting science done. I think this is basically what you said.
The key point, and where I seem to disagree with you, is that these views are not mutually exclusive. I see ‘social network’ science as a reasonably successful mechanism to take humans, with all their failings, and end up with, at least some, ‘idealistic science’ as an output.
You do that by awarding people a higher status when they show a more detailed understanding of nature. I would agree that this process is subject to all kinds of market failures, but I don’t think that it’s as bad as you make out. And I certainly don’t think that it has anything to do with why we haven’t discovered quantum gravity (which, it appears, is the only discovery that would satisfy your definition of progress). There is literally no field of human endeavour that isn’t defined by a search for status; ‘network science’ accepts this and asks how can we use our rationality to structure the game so that when we win, we win from both a individual perspective (get promoted to professor) and a team perspective (humanity gets new understanding/technology/wealth).
But this in no way calls into question ‘idealistic science’ since ‘network science’ is merely the process by which we try to attain ‘idealistic science’ in the real world.
I have realized I worded this rather poorly, that was one of the reasons for getting it out for feedback.
All science is social—the idealistic and the signaling—the difference is whether the search for knowledge (the idealistic view) is primary or whether the signaling or social issues are primary. It is far too easy to fool yourself, the feedback from other researchers is really necessary for science to advance. The problem is that too many now seem to feel excessive social pressures to conformity. At least in part, do to the institutional/academic/bureaucratic control over science, especially its funding.
I think it’s important not to conflate two separate issues.
The term ‘science’ is used to denote both the scientific method and also the social structure that performs science. It’s critical to separate these in ones mind.
What you call “idealistic science” is the scientific method; what you call “social network” science is essentially a human construct aimed at getting science done. I think this is basically what you said.
The key point, and where I seem to disagree with you, is that these views are not mutually exclusive. I see ‘social network’ science as a reasonably successful mechanism to take humans, with all their failings, and end up with, at least some, ‘idealistic science’ as an output.
You do that by awarding people a higher status when they show a more detailed understanding of nature. I would agree that this process is subject to all kinds of market failures, but I don’t think that it’s as bad as you make out. And I certainly don’t think that it has anything to do with why we haven’t discovered quantum gravity (which, it appears, is the only discovery that would satisfy your definition of progress). There is literally no field of human endeavour that isn’t defined by a search for status; ‘network science’ accepts this and asks how can we use our rationality to structure the game so that when we win, we win from both a individual perspective (get promoted to professor) and a team perspective (humanity gets new understanding/technology/wealth).
But this in no way calls into question ‘idealistic science’ since ‘network science’ is merely the process by which we try to attain ‘idealistic science’ in the real world.
[full disclosure: I am a young scientist]
I have realized I worded this rather poorly, that was one of the reasons for getting it out for feedback.
All science is social—the idealistic and the signaling—the difference is whether the search for knowledge (the idealistic view) is primary or whether the signaling or social issues are primary. It is far too easy to fool yourself, the feedback from other researchers is really necessary for science to advance. The problem is that too many now seem to feel excessive social pressures to conformity. At least in part, do to the institutional/academic/bureaucratic control over science, especially its funding.