[Martin J Sallberg (OP)]

Would it be possible to create websites where anyone with a falsifiable hypothesis or theory can write it, the website demanding falsifiable predictions but not classification into a field? I imagine that any user should be able to add links to observations and experiment results that are relevant to said falsifiable predictions. Unlike today's peer review, which is fragmented into fields and thus allows bunk to go unfalsified merely because the empirical evidence against it is in another "field", this website would make much more efficient falsification possible.

I even imagine the possibility of requests for new experiments allowing many hypotheses that make different predictions on the outcomes of the same experiment to be tested at once, cutting costs. Also, in some cases where additional equipment for a hundred bucks or so can test a few extra hypotheses in addition to the hypotheses tested in a much more expensive suggested experiment, additions can be agreed. I imagine that this can make a shift from an "come with credentials for your hypothesis to see if it is worth testing" attitude to a "we cannot know what hypothesis is correct, so the more hypotheses we test, the better" attitude.

[alancalverd]

Try "New Theories", here and elsewhere.

[Martin J Sallberg (OP)]

Merely using "New theories" on existing forums does not further the anti-fragmentation cause. What I am talking about is to create an united Internet platform optimized for falsificationist science without fragmentation into "fields". I imagine something more like a wiki than like a forum, though with free addition of links to empirical evidence instead of demanding the writer of the hypothesis or theory to reference.

I have tried creating wikis but never reached many readers. I do not have the money for an advertising campaign. A simple "good luck" isn't good enough, we need a joint effort!

[alancalverd]

I wouldn't bother with any forum  that carries hypotheses that are not founded on observation. That's philosophy, politics, religion, and other perversions of human intellect. The joy of a forum like this is that you can ask questions about observations. Sometimes they lead to new hypotheses (though it's rare) and new business opportunities, but beware, there's not a lot of common observation that doesn't have a common explanation..

[Martin J Sallberg (OP)]

I am referring to a platform for doing science, testing hypotheses. I am thinking of coding the links by whether or not the linked empirical data support the hypotheses, so that testing of hypotheses and theories can be easily gauged. So easily, in fact, I suggest a gradual scale of testedness to replace any binary distinctions between hypotheses and theories. So it will be easy to see the difference between untested or poorly tested and well-tested. Opening as of yet untested hypotheses for free addition of links to empirical data that test their falsifiable predictions is part of the creation of genuinely rigorous science, without the opportunities for bunk to hide behind discipline borders that poisons current peer review. The more hypotheses and theories that get tested and scrutinized, the better. It is certainly NOT a "corruption of the intellect"! A unified platform for maximizing the chances of a hypothesis or theory meeting its testing empirical evidence is good!

[Martin J Sallberg (OP)]

Even if less than one in 10000 new hypotheses is worth anything, missing out on one that is correct is a disaster. That's why it is important to create a very efficient method for testing all hypotheses. That's where such an Internet platform comes in. Since many hypotheses can make somewhat different and even unique predictions on the outcomes of the same experiment, one experiment can test many hypotheses. That's where free linking comes in. If an user who knows an experiment finds a hypothesis that makes falsifiable predictions for which the experiment is relevant, he/she simply adds a link from the hypothesis page to the experiment page! Don't ask the hypothesis for credentials, don't care if you support or kill a hypothesis, just link to whatever experiments you know! Of course, such a website must demand the falsifiable predictions to be described concretely and understandable to whoever have the practical knowledge to do the experiment. A failed engineering project can be theoretical scientific progress by falsification!