If you get a chance to listen to Stuart Ritchie talking to Helen Lewis on The Spark, BBC Radio 4… it’s only 30 mins. Stuart has written a book called Science Fictions.
The focus is on Open Science. A form of radical transparency. In the BBC discussion, Ritchie talks about the scientific community having the assumption of good faith. Yet studies don’t tend to disclose core evidence which can make it hard for peer reviews to be clear. Why? Human nature is at play as no one really wants to upset other people. The phrase “debunking doesn’t make you popular” is used in the discussion. It’s no fun having your evidence criticised but in science, that’s exactly what is needed to get to the truth.
Ritchie makes the point, he wants to make science boring again.
By moving towards open science, you decrease the chances of poor research getting into the system, which is harmful. Poor research results, perhaps at worst through fraud or negligence, can impact users. Perhaps the system should encourage a ‘bug bounty‘ which encourages others to be rewarded for checking the authenticity.
How does this relate to how you allocate your capital for your future?
I’m sure there is a book here for someone, but radical transparency is a holy grail worth searching for. Fund managers make claims of success but do you understand how they did it? Investors are attracted to ‘star managers’ or ‘star firms’, but with little clear evidence and substance. Why? We are human.
And investors really need a bug bounty hunter to check out the flaws in their investments and encourage debunking. Perhaps then you stand a better chance of getting to the truth rather than the hype.