THE INCENTIVES OF SCIENTISTS Economics would argue that people follow incentives

THE INCENTIVES OF SCIENTISTS

Economics would argue that people follow incentives.

The incentives of scientists are to prosecute your idea regardless of its merit.

Science does not progress because scientists are self aware, or because they employ rational criticism and judgement. (Although I think this criticism applies to the 80% at the bottom more so than the 20% at the top.)

Science advances because either another’s career advance is obtained by discrediting an existing idea, or because its author dies and can no longer defend it from criticism.

For these reasons, “understanding” is overrated unless incentives exist to enforce that understanding.

Since it is not in anyones interest to be critically rational it is very hard to imagine they will be.

Philosophers are primarily cops, critics and articulators of what we do but do not understand – and rarely inventors. And we function as critics of scientists, since it is in our interests to obtain status by criticizing scientists.

But it is patently irrational to expect scientists alone to demontrate behaviors counter to their incentives.

And we are supposed to be the rational ones after all.