There are two kinds of solutions :
a) collective, by calling a group of willing scientists together, who could open an alternative to the main stream;
b) individual, by resorting to suitable tactics, by taking advantage of the failings in the Big Science System.
I am sceptical about a), for several reasons. First, if a) had been possible, it would have exist for a long time and be well-known. Second, I know from experience that active scientists are always short of time (mainly because of their constant endeavour to remain afloat in the main stream), whereas unactive ones will be more interested in administrative activities, or merely submissive. However, I propose to try again.
I set more hope in b); but this way is useless if its adepts remain isolated.
This text presents some possible solutions. I am publishing it temporarily on my personal home page, but as soon as other people are interested and ready to create a group, a virtual forum, or anything else, I shall move it.
The reason for which the situation in science is so desperate is very simple and easy to understand : there are too many scientists, much more than necessary for the mere progress of knowledge.
In the times of Kepler, Galileo, or Newton, there were more things to discover than people for the discovering. Nowadays, the number of things to discover per century or per decade has not increased, whereas the number of scientists has been multiplied by millions. If the scientists were the only rare people who are really curious about the mysteries of nature, their number would remain very limited; but science has become a way to obtain power or social standing, and therefore it draws an enormous number of people who are interested in goods and not mysteries.
This kind of science, in which workers are not motivated by transcendency but merely by the opportunity of a good job, is called the Big Science. I do not deny that this Big Science is able to obtain successes, namely for technological purposes. But it is absolutely unable to have ideas. Big Science is able to produce gigantic achievements, such as spacecrafts, the orbital telescope, particle accelerators, supercomputers and supercomputations etc. Even in mathematics, it is able to produce superproofs (like the proof of Fermat's conjecture), which would have been absolutely inaccessible for isolated individuals. So I do not think that Big Science is useless. But I am convinced that it is unable to interpret its results, as an individual could do.
Some renowned scientists occasionally complain about the disapearance of genius. I do not claim to be a genius ; on the contrary, I am sure I am not. And anyway the genius is extremely rare. But I am convinced that genius cannot exist collectively; it can occur only in individuals. Moreover, the genius sets his thoughts on the quest for transcendency and certainly not on research policy or management. Therefore the reason for its disapearance is straightforward : the genius has been wiped out by the Big Science System, as smallpox has been by the vaccination campaigns.
I do not believe that we could restore the sense of mystery, the quest for transcendency, and therefore the ground for genius, by creating an association for it; something like an ``association for the sense of mystery'', or AFSM, which would have its page on the www. On the contrary, I think this way would be rather ridiculous. And anyhow there is no need to have an association for this, because the sense of mystery is rooted deep in the human mind; it only needs favourable conditions, and an association will certainly be unable to offer them. I think that the Big Science System itself could offer these conditions, provided that young men or women born endowed with this sense of mystery will not be deluded or misled by its lies. For the Big Science System is full of lies.
For example, the B.S.S. would have people believe that today's research workers are seeking the truth, as Newton or Einstein did. The popular scientific literature makes every effort to present science as a quest for the deepest nature of matter or for the origin of the universe. This may be true for the system as a collective entity, but in a metaphorical sense only, since it makes no sense to speak of a quest for a system that is not a human being and has no consciousness. It is certainly false for the individual worker, who is utterly removed from all intellectual fellowship with nature. In reality, the modern scientist, even if he has reached the top, has no longer the possibility of imagining a completely new vision (a paradigma), because he is captive of the so-called main stream; even if he tries to launch a new vision, it will be received by the community as an individual fad : he can write a book, and this book can even obtain popular success, but it will be considered unremittingly as a mere fancy of the old scientist. In the profession such work cannot be considered as serious, and the true reason for this is merely the excess mass of professional scientists.
Just here is the point : in a group of three, ten, or even hundred persons, an idea of a member can be understood by the others, because they know the author in person; not only can they understand the words, but also the implicit part of these words, the part that is expressed by the gestures, by the way it is said, by the whole personality of the author, by his past life. On the contrary, this kind of attention cannot occur in a gigantic community, where it will be replaced by keeping abreast of today's fashion and therefore by mere conformism.
That the mass of research workers is only able to follow fashion is man's nature, after all. The very serious problem is not the mass behaviour, it is that alternative ideas will always be eventually lost in the crowd. Not only the young scientists who dreamt of intellectual fellowship with nature will immediately be swept away by the main stream, but even renowned personnalities (who can have their name with lights high over the stream with a formula or a keyword) can at the same time see their most interesting idea sink like a stone.
Now the question arises : how can this be cured? What can we do to avoid young people being swept out or reduced for life to the condition of obscure workers ?
I propose (temporarily as an experiment) that the rare old scientists who are motivated by the quest for truth rather than by the quest for honours, offer to young men or ladies with similar motivation a possibility of escape. The NET makes it theoretically easier (I am more sceptical about practice, but we shall see) : if a group of experienced scientists is organized and prepared to answer any questions about natural philosophy, then the experiment can begin.
This experiment could encounter the following difficulties:
a) To gather a group of willing scientists together is not obvious; it may be mere utopia. For example we could find willing scientists who realize later that they have no time. Only the experiment can show whether or not the undertaking is realistic.
b) Young scientists need a regular income and are paid by their university or their lab for serious tasks, not for seeking the truth. So they may not have time either. Moreover, the organizers of this kind of virtual forum will have to be careful that it will not lead young workers away from a good job.
c) too many students could overcrowd the forum by asking for solutions to their exercises. The same could happen with popularization lovers or superficial enthusiasts. These should be linked to adequate www-sites, and the forum must be reserved for young professional scientists.
For the difficulty c) there certainly exists technical solutions. But the difficulties a) and b) are much more serious. In almost all universities or research centres, young workers are hired for specific tasks and have no time left for other activities. I hardly know of any place where young scientists can enjoy the privilege of academic freedom, except in France. So I have written a special text for this case (France, in French, of course). Senior scientists could theoretically spare more time, but in practice they often let their work get on top of them. And senior scientists, even if they are critical minded, are often tired researchers. I myself begin to experience these effects of age.
Another white lie of the B.S.S. is to let people believe that today's science is the same as in popular books about the lives of great scientists of the past. In these books, the heroes are always fighting against old ideas or prejudices, and eventually they win because the truth was on their side. I shall not discuss the issue of whether or not these books tell the truth about the heroes. The point is that the fight against false ideas does not exist in today's science. In the B.S.S., an idea will win if, and only if, it is supported by a prestigious institution. Sure, the prestigious universities will only accept serious ideas; but they are unable to recognize whether they are closer to the truth. A world wide debate is impossible, because
a) there are too many potential debaters;
b) most of them are not motivated by the truth;
c) they will not fight on equal terms.
To this major deficiency of the B.S.S. I propose a simple solution : since there are too many scientists, it suffices to restrict the debate to the extremely rare ones who are interested in the deep mysteries of nature. This will obviously solve the problems a) and b). At the same time it will solve c), since the extremely rare ones are equal in marginality.
A third lie of the B.S.S (but I shall not review all them, there are too many of them !) deals with selection. This lie is perhaps the worst. It consists of identifying (or rather confusing) its own criteria of excellence with the authentic qualities required by science, such as creativity, a critical mind, etc. If you listen to the official discourse of the B.S.S., the word excellence will occur very often, but never be defined. It lets people believe that excellence refers to the authentic qualities required by science, but if you participate in any selection commitee, you can observe that the actual machinery of selection is only centred on a particular kind of social skill, which is described in "how to ensure rapid success . . ."
This is an enormous lie : to use the word excellence in the sense of "authentic qualities required by science", when it refers in reality to this particular kind of social skill.
This point must be explained further : the fact that the scientists are selected according to their social skill is not absurd ; the principle of the B.S.S. is to obtain results with an army of obscure workers for whom there is no need for the authentic qualities required by science, and to leave this army controlled by managers, for whom these qualities are not needed either. This system works, the point is that it is only able to obtain technical results, not to have ideas as an individual could do. It is a machinery, not a human being. So it is only logical that the B.S.S. chooses its workers through their sheer technical qualifications, and its managers through their social skill (there are problems with regards to the efficiency or honesty of this selection process since the system is unable to distinguish good managers from bad ones, but this is an unavoidable weakness of every human undertaking). Moreover, I think that the B.S.S. is useful : individual scientists, even these endowed with authentic qualities, are unable to obtain such results. But they could understand or interpret them, something which neither the obscure workers nor the excellent managers are able to do ; and even if they were able, they would not be listened to.
To avoid further misunderstanding, the following remark will be useful : I spoke about the selection machinery for science workers or managers, not about the selection machinery for academic examinations. The problems of education are well known and I do not think that there are serious lies about the education of scientists. Generally their knowledge of science is too specialized and incomplete, but the system does not try to hide this deficiency.
In conclusion : it is only logical that within the B.S.S. the word excellence refers to a social skill, but this can in no way justify the enormous lie of confusing this kind of excellence with others.
Now the trouble with this lie is that it will not only cheat the public, but also the young scientists (and even less young ones). This will be especially prejudicial for a young scientist who believed to have found the way to the mysteries of nature, and who will be dramatically disappointed.
There is no way to reform the B.S.S. Any attempt to change it is doomed from the outset. It sometimes happens that science managers express criticism of the system and propose some changes ; but you can easily see that such wishes are just hypocrisy, from the fact that the aforementioned lies are not exposed. I propose to leave the B.S.S as it is, and to use it as a gigantic machinery that is able to deliver results, similar to a supercomputer. The only way for a true science or rather natural philosophy, which would deal with the deep mysteries of nature, is to remain independent of the B.S.S. But the extremely rare scientists who are interested in natural philosophy can remain members of the B.S.S. There is no need for them to resign.
To find suitable tactics for survival within the B.S.S., which will ensure the possibility
of interesting activities, is therefore the first step of any restored natural philosophy.
to be continued : I shall try to find practical solutions for survival.
Thank you Sarah for your corrections.