The Science Game™ is a great way to frame a lot of what's wrong with modern science... I would interpret the infinite/finite game distinction differently - science should be played as an infinite game for infinite stakes - increasing our knowledge and appreciation of the universe, improving civilization - but too often it is play as finite game for titles, publications, funding, prestige, etc. Science is more ethical and progresses faster when we collectively play it as an infinite game, but too often the incentives motivate individuals to play finite games. How can we remedy this situation? Systemic change is important, perhaps most important, but it's not everything - individuals always have the option to play infinitely if they can overcome the pressures against doing so. I'm of the opinion that the only way to truly solve the problems with The Science Game™ is to develop a new ethos around science, one that incorporates spiritual, philosophical, and aesthetic elements and radically reimagines the education of scientists. Not that there won't be new problems with this conception of science, the challenge is finding the balance...
Yeah I'm definitely using the notion of an infinite game rather loosely here. I think in the original use of it's used in a totally different way (and one that I don't quite agree with). I love the Wittgensteinian sort of language of it, so kind of just adapted it here. I know that traditionally it does have that valence where infinite = good, but my point here is that in science actually infinite = bad. There are probably exceptions to this, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. As for remedying it - I'm open to the idea! I have no idea where or how to start, but at least talking about it is the first part. Better education always sounds good, but I'm not sure these are problems that get solved within academia itself.
Yup totally makes sense - maybe you could say that when science is played infinitely you know when to stop and you have a deeper sense of what is forbidden. I'm a biology teacher so I tend to think about things through an educational lens; it seems to me that the gamification of science starts pretty young, or at least that changing the way we educate scientists from the ground up is one lever we could pull here. I'm struck that the discussions about improving science seem to always focus on changing incentives/institutions and never on changing the actual people that will be doing the research and leading the institutions in the future. But as you say only so much can get solved in education/academia...
Good point about gain of function research being a tunable infinite science machine. Shocked that the NIH would award US taxpayer-funded grant money to the Wuhan Virology Institute. Talk about unilateral disarmament!
The Science Game™ is a great way to frame a lot of what's wrong with modern science... I would interpret the infinite/finite game distinction differently - science should be played as an infinite game for infinite stakes - increasing our knowledge and appreciation of the universe, improving civilization - but too often it is play as finite game for titles, publications, funding, prestige, etc. Science is more ethical and progresses faster when we collectively play it as an infinite game, but too often the incentives motivate individuals to play finite games. How can we remedy this situation? Systemic change is important, perhaps most important, but it's not everything - individuals always have the option to play infinitely if they can overcome the pressures against doing so. I'm of the opinion that the only way to truly solve the problems with The Science Game™ is to develop a new ethos around science, one that incorporates spiritual, philosophical, and aesthetic elements and radically reimagines the education of scientists. Not that there won't be new problems with this conception of science, the challenge is finding the balance...
Yeah I'm definitely using the notion of an infinite game rather loosely here. I think in the original use of it's used in a totally different way (and one that I don't quite agree with). I love the Wittgensteinian sort of language of it, so kind of just adapted it here. I know that traditionally it does have that valence where infinite = good, but my point here is that in science actually infinite = bad. There are probably exceptions to this, but I think it's a good rule of thumb. As for remedying it - I'm open to the idea! I have no idea where or how to start, but at least talking about it is the first part. Better education always sounds good, but I'm not sure these are problems that get solved within academia itself.
Yup totally makes sense - maybe you could say that when science is played infinitely you know when to stop and you have a deeper sense of what is forbidden. I'm a biology teacher so I tend to think about things through an educational lens; it seems to me that the gamification of science starts pretty young, or at least that changing the way we educate scientists from the ground up is one lever we could pull here. I'm struck that the discussions about improving science seem to always focus on changing incentives/institutions and never on changing the actual people that will be doing the research and leading the institutions in the future. But as you say only so much can get solved in education/academia...
Good point about gain of function research being a tunable infinite science machine. Shocked that the NIH would award US taxpayer-funded grant money to the Wuhan Virology Institute. Talk about unilateral disarmament!
"... but the id is always funding and prestige."
More like the Monster from the Id.
In the 1970s I took a course from Werner Leinfellner where I first learned of a game-theoretic view of science.