For what's it's worth, I'll answer your questions in 2 parts:
First, is the literal part of your question: can Experiment help in creating "indie-science" outside of traditional institutions? Yes, I think the crowd sourcing model will create "indie science".
However, can this contribute meaningfully to our scientific knowledge? I doubt it. Not because I think there's anything wrong with Experiment, but because I don't think it's possible to effectively contribute to basic scientific research outside of institutions.
1. The need for standards
Institutions arise out of a need to standardize and legitimize something. This need caused commerce to create banks, laws to create courts, and scientific research to create university institutions.
To study science, you need to understand everything that's been discovered in the past and how that's been verified, and the academic institutions provides a system of trust where you can be reasonably sure that published results are accurate and that mental and practical procedures are done in a way that everyone expects. It's not perfect, but it's by far the best system we have.
2. Responsibility and accountability
The reason we need standardization is not just because it makes life easier for researchers, but also because we are have a responsibility to be as truthful and knowledgeable as possible. Institutions help keep all scientists accountable for this responsibility is a similar way that banks help keep monetary transactions accountable.
3. Crowd sourcing is not a great platform for consistency
To keep Experiment non-institutional but held to the same standard means that it would have to be able to funnel vast amounts of money in a consistent way to researchers so they can build up their reputation. However, crowd sourcing is generally a very poor mechanism for consistency as it's hard to get a lot of people and keep their attention for long.
However, it's not to say that experiment can't be very useful. I think it's a good platform to help push development. Development are not held to the same standards because it only really matters that it works. Since development projects tend to be one ofs, I think it's a better fit for the model. This is essentially the same idea as Kickstarter but is in a more niche industry (research based development).
Of course this represents only my opinion; debate and corrections from more knowledgeable sources are welcomed and encouraged!
Kally Pan, Senior Data Analyst at TheAthletic.com
Source:
First, is the literal part of your question: can Experiment help in creating "indie-science" outside of traditional institutions? Yes, I think the crowd sourcing model will create "indie science".
However, can this contribute meaningfully to our scientific knowledge? I doubt it. Not because I think there's anything wrong with Experiment, but because I don't think it's possible to effectively contribute to basic scientific research outside of institutions.
1. The need for standards
Institutions arise out of a need to standardize and legitimize something. This need caused commerce to create banks, laws to create courts, and scientific research to create university institutions.
To study science, you need to understand everything that's been discovered in the past and how that's been verified, and the academic institutions provides a system of trust where you can be reasonably sure that published results are accurate and that mental and practical procedures are done in a way that everyone expects. It's not perfect, but it's by far the best system we have.
2. Responsibility and accountability
The reason we need standardization is not just because it makes life easier for researchers, but also because we are have a responsibility to be as truthful and knowledgeable as possible. Institutions help keep all scientists accountable for this responsibility is a similar way that banks help keep monetary transactions accountable.
3. Crowd sourcing is not a great platform for consistency
To keep Experiment non-institutional but held to the same standard means that it would have to be able to funnel vast amounts of money in a consistent way to researchers so they can build up their reputation. However, crowd sourcing is generally a very poor mechanism for consistency as it's hard to get a lot of people and keep their attention for long.
However, it's not to say that experiment can't be very useful. I think it's a good platform to help push development. Development are not held to the same standards because it only really matters that it works. Since development projects tend to be one ofs, I think it's a better fit for the model. This is essentially the same idea as Kickstarter but is in a more niche industry (research based development).
Of course this represents only my opinion; debate and corrections from more knowledgeable sources are welcomed and encouraged!