[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Sadre Spinegnawer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Alright, let's stipulate human beings are lucky if they *survive* not excel. We try, but we don't always do that good. But, that is also part of how lucky we are.


An ideal situation is an incentivized peer reviewed information source. Imagine three labs, each given a task and paid 1 billion dollars. How these labs complete the task is irrelevant. But the goal is verifiable and so the product is verifiable. And they only get 1 billion dollars each if the perform the task.

I think that works pretty good, right? The end-result is already given (produce an X than can do Y) and you have 3 labs that might not want to just cooperate, but also perhaps be the lab that discovers the biggest clue, the key to the solution.


That lab gets ribs. That lab hosts the after party. That lab, gets laid.


"an incentivized peer reviewed information source" = what happened when capitalism met scientific method. I still tear up at the diner scene. You can fake it! That is why we need independent peer review!


OK. Not everything functions like a high-stakes capital-scientific enterprise.



But, that is the type of situation in which "what is approved of" matches up very well with solid information. And that is a lot of stuff in the world. What gets approved is what matches up. That is the job. Always go to sources that if they are wrong, they suffer. And don't look for the whole picture. That's your job.

Did you see the Sokal sequel?