Very astute observations.

>> I really wish we could leave these types of decisions up to parents and parents only.

>And if your parents suck? (Mine did.)

What you proposal then?

(for the records: Mine did too, in addition to half of the people I know.)

>But, also, children with shitty parents deserve as much safety and support as they can get too.

Why do you think they deserve, and at who's expense?

>There are probably isolated incidents, and many unproven theories,

Depending on how/what you calculate, cumulative taxation is between 50% to 70% of an average person's income. This is all that you need to know.

Seems to rival incarceration or probably is better.

In the true spirit of science this needs to be pursued however outlandish it may seem.

>My proposal is: let science be done by those who need its results to be correct.

A tangential proposal - individuals (not orgs) should offer to upfront fund ( in lump sum) promising researchers for life. That way a researcher is not worried about losing his livelihood. I suspect this may already be happening in a few circles without much fanfare.

Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better?

If that’s your criteria, then shouldn’t said funding go to an individual scientist who has no lab, no staff, no PhD candidates, and no access to the internet or existing research.

Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.

>Why are individuals better that individuals acting together as an organisation better?

Most organizations are made of of very mediocre (or political) individuals, and when it comes to wrong (or political) decisions individuals cannot be held responsible, that how orgs deflect responsibility.

On the hand when an individual (often wealthy) or a bunch of them decide to fund something (often from his own pocket), they know what they are doing and are personally willing to bear the risk.

>Because organisations are bad and only individuals are capable of making Correct Decisions.

I should have been more nuanced.

Org = generally public orgs where the people in the org do not have a stake beyond their jobs in the org. Example: govt. As an exception to this rule there can be (private) orgs of very competent people who deploy they own money to get things done, including research.

(p.s - I realize that I cannot delve into all all nuances with a few sentences I put here, but hopefully you get the drift)

>My take on the self correction is, that later research usually cannot be build on wrong results.

AFIK, it does not seem to happen much with mainstream medicinal research. Many layers of fraud/incompetence/assumptions for centuries with no correction in sight. Of course there are certain sub-areas that may have advanced. In fact it's the modern day religion, having replaced the god centric religion of yesteryears.

I'll very happily (as a significant benefactor) take this century's medicine over the last. And the one or two centuries before that aren't even worth starting to think about. So something must be working wioth mainstream medicinal research.

Fully concur with you here. Ultimately it boils down to integrity and objectivity of the individuals involved, which IMO is in short supply.

Also my way of phrasing what you said: science = verb, Science™ = noun. George Orwell had a point about the play of words.

>It's a self fulfilling prophecy... while us commoners, or so called "activists" or ethicists ponder and debate on culture, morality, law and ethics... The powerful are just living an alternate life devoid of all these moral qualms and are have clearly distanced themselves from the mundane, have distanced themselves from the guilt or any kind of accountability.

I have been musing, good deeds aren't paying off - heck the peasants don't even notice, or think I'm a loser. I'm tempted to think like the powerful...