Science

I think it's really important to fund studies to be redone. Easily half of Scientific funding, which I'm guessing because new studies probably take more resources because they have to be made from scratch, would be like 80% of studies, I think I would devote to redoing previous studies. Humanity has been around for a while. We'll figure out the complicated stuff later. Many of our scientific mistakes have happened when we were under the wrong assumptions. We can break those assumptions and build our science like the pyramids, with firm foundations.

I think in an era where truth is questioned, having an authority, science, that is more dedicated to confirming it's own truths is important to keep us moving forward and keep our debates about the proper questions (not about things that are already settled).

There should be an Agency for the Criticism, Improvement, and Confirmation of Scientific Studies aka ACICSS pronounced "A"-sicks, lol.

Basically, you take a lot of the studies that are already done, and you criticise them (this part might not be overly necessary because I know studies get criticised and rewritten a lot) and rate them on their firmness and say how they can be improved. The procedure is then rewritten like it was originally done with those improvements, and is handed off to some scientists who have a fairly stable but boring job of redoing studies. But, God damn, It think they'll help humanity so much.

I thought about this because of this I was reading Obama's Economic report, and there's this statistic that's v interesting. I'll post the pic of the text below.

Like, 5% is a hell of a lot. Over some air?? Bro, if this is for sure, we could know precisely how much money to spend to reduce ozone. That'd be lit.

When you consider that I think a more mathematized model of governance would be helpful, making sure our numbers are correct is very important. Building a government and civilization off of numbers that have a beauracracy on its back makes me feel comfortable.

The idea for this agency probably has some holes in it. I am fairly certain that the lack of repeated studies is a problem with the encitives to get papers published heavily incintivizing new and surprising work, which is why I think a boring beauracracy might be a good solution. That said, I don't know the procdure for new papers very well, and the heavy criticisms and many rewritings might mitigate the issues, and there might be other factors. I'd rate this idea as 7 in importance and 3 in certainty.