What Is It?Edit
The IVS is a proposal to fund challenges to entrenched scientific theories, with the expectation that some will become paradigm changes. The idea was created by a successful academic researcher, Dr. Gerald Pollack of the University of Washington.
Although not yet widely reported by science journalists, a number of academic whistleblowers have published works in recent decades pointing to serious issues in the way that the peer review system handles challenges to entrenched scientific theories. The claims have so far failed to register with the public, and understandably in light of the significant marketing of modern science and scientific consensus.
Yet, a comparison of the milestones of scientific discovery in the two periods 1865-1905 and 1965-2005 reveals a dramatic change in the number of conceptual scientific revolutions in recent times. It might be argued that we have simply entered into a new, more broad phase of specialist scientific discovery were it not for claims across the disciplines of numerous scientific controversies which are rarely taken seriously.
The IVS is seeking a $1 billion endowment - which sounds like an enormous sum, but truthfully represents just a small percentage of the total money spent yearly on academic research. This money would be channeled towards challenges to textbook theory. Dr. Pollack's unique process for vetting these challenges follows from lessons he has himself learned from decades of pursuing against-the-mainstream research.
What makes his effort unique, beyond any former discussions of science courts, is that he has already advised the National Science Foundation (fast-forward to 1 hr, 15 mins) on how to address these problems -- which, interestingly, they acknowledge (see page 2). The NSF attempted to act upon that advice, but those efforts have not, to date, created a protected path for challenges with breakthrough potential.
Although this system is designed to run in tandem with the traditional review system, some resistance to the creation of a path for the elaboration of novel scientific theories can be expected from academia. Accordingly, it is very important that the public be educated on why such a reform is necessary. To that end, I've created this wiki.
If you are like most people visiting this page, you are not even aware that there is an issue with the peer review system at all. So, there is a bit of ground to cover. If you find my presentation persuasive, please consider helping me to further elaborate this wikia, so that we can together work towards asking the big questions of science with a fresh perspective. Who knows what we'll find?
Why Do We Need the IVS? Edit
The Decline of Conceptual Revolutions in Science Edit
Challenges to Conventional Scientific Theory Are Today Both Common and Ignored Edit
Recent Critiques of Modern Science Suggest the Public Narrative on Scientific Process is Not Accurate Edit
The Existing Academic Grant System Exhibits Numerous Problems Edit
How Will the IVS Foster Revolutionary Advances? Edit
Let's take a close look at each step of the process.
Operative Principles Edit
The First Step Edit
Why Can This Group Make It Happen? Edit
Photos and videos are a great way to add visuals to your wiki. Find videos about your topic by exploring Wikia's Video Library.