Six excellent points

IMHO, the "Many Scientists Still Don't Understand Math" (and statistics) and "It's All About the Money" are the biggest problems. Science is dominated by mediocrity and quacks, who are interested only in draining money from naive tax payers. They wouldn't get this much in any other industry, which requires some genuine skills (second thoughts, some of them could actually try as prostitutes). Science is driven by the few outliers and a group of those who haven't realized yet that it isn't what they imagined it was and there's no way it will ever be.

Although the example given were people on the periphery of science not understanding maths (i.e. if you are a Physicist you still understand maths, but perhaps not if you are a Psychologist). I agree with UV about the money, but from a slightly different angle. Research is measured on papers being published, and that is how someone gains tenure etc. We seem to have lost having intelligent people who are just paid to THINK, and come up with good ideas, and take the risk that sometimes they won't (and it won't get published). QuoteWe have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or to describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn't any place to publish, in a dignified manner, what you actually did in order to get to do the work. R P Feynman, Nobel LectureIn fact Feynman addresses much of these in his Cargo Cult science. It is not a new problem.

What's wrong with the money? I had no bad experiences with it so far. It's better to have than not to have.

UV is spot on.What's wrong with money in science? It creates wrong sort of incentives. Money is good in business. In research? not so much.And Rmax, you'd be surprised how little most physicists know about statistics. It's often treated like a pariah brand of maths.

Many scientists do not understand the essence of programming and what is required to make a system a (universal) system for programmability. IMO, our money system is programmable, but we are still in the baby shoes of its programming (no wonder that many see it as a "monstrous system" that cannot be tamed?)

Nah, it's not programmable because it's not a machine. It's a social construct in a dynamic society with feedback loops. You can manipulate it, but it's not programming as we know it. There's no manual "input X and you'll get Y".

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalWhat's wrong with the money? I had no bad experiences with it so far. It's better to have than not to have.Money is OK. Corruption isn't, and science is corrupted to the bone.

The money creates wrong sort of incentives? C'mon, there are no monks anymore, those few who left are isolated, forgotten and have nothing to do with science. These days there are only two incentives in the society: money and power and money is the one which corrupts less.Even more - the money is the main (in Europe) or only (in America) evaluation tool for human beings: If I make 100 grand PA and you only 50 grand, I am twice better than you.Do we want a decent science? Let's pay scientists decent wages.

QuoteOriginally posted by: UltravioletQuoteOriginally posted by: GamalWhat's wrong with the money? I had no bad experiences with it so far. It's better to have than not to have.Money is OK. Corruption isn't, and science is corrupted to the bone.look at how much funding the global cooling deniers were given to pursue theories which are now discredited.It was (still is ?) near impossible for a climate realist who acknowledges that global cooling is real to get government funding

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: UltravioletQuoteOriginally posted by: GamalWhat's wrong with the money? I had no bad experiences with it so far. It's better to have than not to have.Money is OK. Corruption isn't, and science is corrupted to the bone.look at how much funding the global cooling deniers were given to pursue theories which are now discredited.It was (still is ?) near impossible for a climate realist who acknowledges that global cooling is real to get government fundingIt's a disgrace.

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalThe money creates wrong sort of incentives? C'mon, there are no monks anymore, those few who left are isolated, forgotten and have nothing to do with science. These days there are only two incentives in the society: money and power and money is the one which corrupts less.Even more - the money is the main (in Europe) or only (in America) evaluation tool for human beings: If I make 100 grand PA and you only 50 grand, I am twice better than you.Do we want a decent science? Let's pay scientists decent wages.I say pay according to the work done... oh wait, do we really need more crappy publications.

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalThe money creates wrong sort of incentives? C'mon, there are no monks anymore, those few who left are isolated, forgotten and have nothing to do with science. These days there are only two incentives in the society: money and power and money is the one which corrupts less.There are many people who would do science for science's sake, but they're forced out of the system.

QuoteOriginally posted by: katastrofaNah, it's not programmable because it's not a machine. It's a social construct in a dynamic society with feedback loops. You can manipulate it, but it's not programming as we know it. There's no manual "input X and you'll get Y".Each system that is is universal in the sense: solid enough to store, fluid enough for transactions is programmable. Storage for value and media for (economic) transactions (that is money) - the economic machine metaphor of exchange and storage.Edit: Christpher Langtons's work at the Santa Fe institute on "Computation at the Edge of Chaos"

QuoteOriginally posted by: UltravioletQuoteOriginally posted by: GamalThe money creates wrong sort of incentives? C'mon, there are no monks anymore, those few who left are isolated, forgotten and have nothing to do with science. These days there are only two incentives in the society: money and power and money is the one which corrupts less.Even more - the money is the main (in Europe) or only (in America) evaluation tool for human beings: If I make 100 grand PA and you only 50 grand, I am twice better than you.Do we want a decent science? Let's pay scientists decent wages.I say pay according to the work done... oh wait, do we really need more crappy publications.We should limit the number of publications allowed per year per researcher. E.g. maximum 2.