things science needs:
- grants to reward risk over incremental innovation
- micro-bounties for specific research breakthroughs
- rewards for 'whistleblowing' on assumptions
- more funding for basic research
**more people thinking about this stuff**
cc: @james_ough @alexeyguzey
-
-
Brian Heligman Retweeted David Chapman
Stronger incentives for peer reviewhttps://mobile.twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1034458091864158208 …
Brian Heligman added,
David Chapman @MeaningnessWhoa! “…the research community could predict which results would replicate and failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.” Fits my prior: we know which stuff is nonsense, but tolerate it for social getting-along reasons. https://twitter.com/BrianNosek/status/1034093709971873794 …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Yes! And also prediction markets for general usefulness as well as replicability (will anyone care about this in 3yrs?)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Anyone who is experienced in a field can immediately identify the worst offenders. There’s just not enough reward for calling out the frivolous stuff
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
yessssssss +1 for prediction markets too!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
What do you guys think are the odds we care about prediction markets in three years?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
oooh a prediction on prediction markets! (also don't people already care? well, the CFTC does haha.. but here you need specific ways of allowing researchers to have skin in the game wrt to the future of their field)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I’m wondering if our interest will last. I think they have immense potential and I’m excited to see where they go, but at the moment they’re of limited impact. (Gambling on political candidates and the price of ethereum) Don’t see Futarchy coming any time soon. 75% yes I’ll care
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.