6 Comments

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...

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment
Jul 25, 2021Liked by Erik Hoel

"... but the id is always funding and prestige."

More like the Monster from the Id.

Expand full comment
Jun 6, 2021Liked by Erik Hoel

In the 1970s I took a course from Werner Leinfellner where I first learned of a game-theoretic view of science.

Expand full comment