No. You are just flat out wrong here, you are using the term energy incorrectly, using both the colloquial meaning and physical meaning at the same time.

Entropy mitigation in a moral system is not an « energy intensive » process. No raw ressources are needed, no power consumed. No physical energy is needed nor wasted.

However, « mental energy », as ill defined as it is, is needed. But mental energy is not the correct term to use here either, but mental & moral fortitude is what you really mean.

This is fundamentally a cultural & psychological problem, not a ressources management problem. Ressource management may be one way to improve the problem, but it is not the solution, only an aspect of it.

[deleted]

https://youtu.be/Q9aM9Ch97U8

Carl Poppa?

There's no way to stop it in the current system we've got, and as mentioned the issue has spread from commercial labs to the university sector. For me it boils down to money. All my research funding is from governments, and they typically aren't interested in any sort of direct financial windfall. If I was privately funded by someone with an agenda, say proving that supersymmetry exists in my case, then I can see pressure for my results to point in that direction. There are very strong checks and balances which would stop that from happening in my case, but other fields of science have different standards of proof.

>Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?

You are suggesting that whether something is true or false is the same as whether it can be shown to be true or false with pseudo-code. This is a false premise.

The only way your ".01% rigged" system would be "a rigged system" isn't that .01% of the system were a necessary and uncollectable operation component of 100% of the output of the system. Systems are not black boxes. A system doesn't have to be 100% reliable or uncorrupted to be reliable and uncorrupted. This isn't a matter simple enough for the literally braindead logic of pseudo-code or even more braindead real code. It requires reasoning, intelligence, and the ability to grasp the meaning (not merely a single definition) of words.

>f someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct

Yes, but I would be unable to force them to admit this, or understand it, or even recognize it.

>If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?

You have begun a long and difficult journey toward understanding the difference between a system and a product. Best of luck; let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

>Do you realize I covered this already,

You did? Where?

>in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up

Why do you think this? If your assumptions about how the regulation is enforced is wrong, why do you think you'll be able to accurately assess how they perform, and whether that performance is 'rigged' or not?

>but not comprehensive Knowledge

Obviously I'd argue that I do have a comprehensive knowledge, becauae it's my job to have comprehensive knowledge.

>Can you tell me why I am doing this?

As far as I can tell - to explain how if, for example, in an agency with 10 departments, 1 of those departments is 'rigged' the agency is therefore 10% rigged. And so when asked the question "is the agency rigged" and looking for a binary yes/no answer. The answer is 'Yes - the agency is 'rigged'' - becuase 10% is greater than 0%.

As I explained before, I think 'rigged' is used poorly here becuase it implies a structure that pre-determines results, instead of results being corrupted after the fact. The entire set up of a regulatory agency is to specifically avoid pre-determining results.

They are usually the people funding something, which is definitely needed as well

I read "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" 45 years ago but I don't remember it saying that. It certainly said that scientific progress is not as straightforward as Popper suggested, with competing paradigms not even agreeing on what counted as progress, but that's not the same as corruption. I'd more associate that with someone like Paul Feyerabend.

The replication crisis is in the field of psychology not biology.

The people that own those patents are rarely the people that created them. Science doesn't need them, they're just middlemen.

> a) False

Can you show a pseudo-code representation of the logic you would use in isSystemRigged() to generate False for the proposition?

> b) yes

If someone disagrees with you, would you be able to demonstrate that you are necessarily correct, and successfully defend that demonstration from valid logical and epistemic critique?

--

And I will re-use this:

If you bought a product that says "Pure Product A" on the label, but it is not in fact composed of 100% Product A but instead also contains .01% of a carcinogenic substance, would you consider the label to be objectively accurate (aka: True)?

If you read Kuhn he says corruption is an inevitability, ownership or not.

> Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up

Do you realize I covered this already, in a way that does not require me to have in-depth knowledge of how regulatory agencies are set up (something that you may have "Expert" knowledge of, but not comprehensive Knowledge (JTB) of)?

>> Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this? > > > > Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.

Can you tell me why I am doing this?

isn't the fact the the validity of recent papers is going down an indication that our balance of control over the entropy in the system is off? Like wouldn't the ideal state be that we have a growing system that maintains an equilibrium.

I suppose there could be an argument that the equilibrium point could be more permissive but if we think we are in a good state now or even that we are slightly in a bad state, isn't the only option to devote more resources to correct course?

I'm kind of just going where my mind takes me so take everything I said with a grain of salt

Yeah so your response just makes me think you don't really know or understand how regulatory agencies are set up

>Correct - do you "get" why I am doing this?

Yes, and I think your conclusion is wrong.

>reasonable speculation

It's not just speculation - these agencies are specially set up in such a way to produce multiple independent verification steps. The approval process is not linear.

>Do you have knowledge of what is actually going on, or are you speculating?

I have specific knowledge - I directly produce, assess and report data that is to be submitted to the FDA, and I read and respond to the replies the FDA provides to the data I submit

>"does not 'approve of'" is a conveniently...

I mean that it's quite literally illegal. People end up in jail for corrupting these processes. And there are many hurdles set up in these institutions to catch erroneous results.

>> And we don't have to imagine a system either...

>It is not technically necessary, but to get to the level of detail you are making assertions about, imagination is necessary.

Not really.. your imagined scenario isn't all that applicable, because it doesn't represent the actual set up of these agencies well.

>>that we can examine to assess this rigging claim.

>And the quality of such examinations is equal to the quality of the examinations, which is unknown to you and me

This is not unknown to me. I'm quite familiar with the regulatory set up, and quality control of all three of the agencies noted.

>That's the beauty about humans - we do not use precise definitions for words

In science, precise definitions are what it's all about - so you should be careful accusing a highly precise, well defined and regulated system with imprecise language.

>so if you'd like to decide upon a definition together, I would be game.

You're mostly just talking about corruption from what I can tell.

For exmaple, a system is rigged when the results are pre-determined - a rigged voting machine is when the machine is programmed to record a vote for candidate X, even when a ballot is submitted with candidate W, Y or Z selected.

A system is corrupt when the results are changed after the fact to reflect a more desired outcome. A corrupt voting system is when the machine accurately records the ballot results, and then someone goes in after the fact to change the results to suit their purposes.

A rigged system can not produce good data - it's designed to produce data of a specific nature.

A corrupt system can produce good data, that data may then be corrupted after the fact for some specific purpose.

>What definition are you using for "know" here?

Not sure what you mean - you quoted a section where I'm asking you if you 'know' about the structure of regulatory agencies - in asking if you're aware of how they're set up, organized and how they assess information.

If you're asking about the agency 'knowing' about a corrupt individual - I'm talking about 'instututional awareness' which is essentially enough people in positions of influce who are aware of the situation and can act on it.

>you also have a measurement problem, and and an epistemology problem

... Why? The agencies and people who staff them are well-aware if these hurdles, and things are set up in such away to avoid these issues as much as possible.

>Correct - it is kind of like the difference between lying and speaking untruthfully.

No... Actually there can be very sound and well founded reasons why an agency may approve the use of a specific drug - even if that drug has not cleared all of the traditionally required hurdles. It happens all the time, there's an entire 'emergncy use' regulatory system to address this.

>would saying that the system is partially corrupt not actually be a more accurate representation than saying it is not corrupted?

Sure - it's much more accurate to describe this stuff in terms of %corruption rather than %rigged, IMO at least.

>I wonder if this has ever happened, even once. 🤔

Again, corruption =/= rigging

>Would you mind pasting in a pseudocode representation of your actual cognitive implementation of isRigged()?

No. I'm not a programmer or a philosopher, I don't work with absolutes.

>This has no bearing on whether it is actually rigged

It absolutely does - see the example with voting machines above.

>Actually, it would likely not (note: I literally just made that up

Yeah you're just wrong here. These agencies have incentive structures to correct themselves, they're not corporations.

a) False

b) yes

[removed]

[removed]

They're both scenarios where we push things to an extreme. As I see it (from a kind of Naturalist+Existentialist-I-Guess perspective based on my reading of Schrödinger's lectures on thermodynamics and more contemporary researchers who have posed existentialist questions) all things have this entropy nature in them, a pull towards disorder (don't read this as chaos), variation and ultimately a sort of dispersion. If we do nothing, everything will crumble, if we do everything we can to stop one thing from crumbling, then everything else will crumble faster: the key is to find the right amount of "push back" needed for the right things, the aim for the optimal instead of the ideal.

So any system we create will need reforms and changes, but there is no formula to "when", "how often" and "how extensively", besides it's something that a different generation needs to deal with anyway and we cannot predict what paradigms and context will be relevant in the future. Providing a framework for the means to make changes and giving a rational permission for occasional radicalism is how systems can overall preserve its function.

The way this relates to the OP is that since we have unprecedented, massive influx of new research publications, there is a lot that just goes kind of unchallenged, this is tied in with entropy, which gets "stronger" with "bigger numbers", so we can work against this by verifying the research in some way, but just how much resources put into this verification is worth when research is just getting more and more expensive? Currently the main form of this is by doing metastudies, which collect a bunch of relevant studies, critically studies their methods, results, impact on other researches, etc. to determine whether this was in some form verified, falsified or is suspiciously lacking. It is essentially doing science on science, and in many fields it seems to work just fine, though typically the criticism is that there isn't enough people doing this with enough resources, which I agree with, but I'd also add, that metastudies are hard to do because of the highly critical focus of it.

Overall, this OP is a bit dramatic, there is no real crisis, in the general scientific community, so no, scientists are not shacks (yet), but in some fields this has grown out of proportion (psychology and medicine namely) where a bit of change is needed or more frequent/sizable metastudies.

"If the clinical trial process was truly rigged, wouldn't we see a much higher approval rate for them?" - Not necessarily. If a major factor for approvals is money then the most wealthy clients/applications may have a tendency for approval. Note that the FDA is massively funded by the same pharma industry they're supposed to be regulating.

[removed]

I think the ultimate world is one in which we continue to move forward cancelling suffering left and right while at the same time suffering in how hard we’re working to reach that better world. Anything outside of that is just a cherry on top.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9aM9Ch97U8 I prefer the cell block wisdom of Carl Poppa

I don't know about this one. The fact that knowledge can be owned in the form of IP, patents, trade secrets, etc is the only reason that a lot of progress that gets made in the first place. It's not like it was a century ago where major scientific breakthroughs can be made left and right in your garage. They require multimillion dollar labs and sometimes billions in resources, that frequently wouldn't exist if the results of the study couldn't be protected by IP laws.

> I would say if you saw a system was 0.01% rigged and you presented it as "the system is rigged" with no further clarification you are being very intentionally misleading.

In my case you would be correct on the "intentionally" part, but this may not be a safe bet with most people. Remember: everyone is doing their best.

> This would be a case where "technically correct" is actually dead wrong

Disagree - technically, it "is" correct (well, depending one the particular implementation of isRigged() one is using, and whether the implementation changes per topic). It is not comprehensively correct though!