Wissenshaft is a Frisian-language term with cognates in many Germanic tongues. In these languages it encapsulates all knowledge-based acedemic work, from scholarly writ and publishing to basic science to invention of machines and so forth in application of science. The only Germnic language to lack a cognate of this word, and one of the only languages in general to lack a word of similar meaning, is Mainstream English. The Willsome calqued cognate would be witship. However, I don't think this word would come to hold the exact meaning of it's Frisian counterpart either. Instead, I envision it encompassing descriptive sciences and normative disciplines of all kinds but not necessarily including writing a scholarly work that compiles known information.
I consider academia to be an outgrowth of the cancer of ganghood and mainstream science and it's pop-outreach aspects to rest on false foundations. Of the many qualms I have with it, most of them I think can be resolved by creating a "fork" of modern science and reworking the epistimology and the nature of statement-making within to be more internally and externally consistent. For instance, it is taken as gospel among linguists that an Indo-European people living in the Caucasus long ago spoke a language which ended up being the ancestors of almost all modern languages. They deem it impossible for any part of their theory to be false and call you a heretic for disagreeing, when in fact it is relatively easy to assert that the Indo-Europeans could have emerged near the Indus Valley prior to the Harappan civilization, or that some of their reconstructions of words in this proto-indo-european language are flawed. Likewise, many scholars in many sciences purport to be "prescriptivists", that is to say, they're a bunch of commies. If your job is to make sentences with "should" in them, you define an intellectual and are a parasite unto humanity itself. I have, to iterate, no problem with somebody who says "In speaking engish, one should not use the semicolon as a full stop as it confuses readers", and I have no problem with grammarians who make such statements, but these ridiculous regulatory boards for languages like Swedish and so forth make me laugh. Even Orwell, a known commie and gangleefer, thought linguistic centralization and regulation was a bad thing.
While I do not seek to abolish academia (in the short term), I can do research on and find out about different parts of scientific inquiry, why it works, why normies are cinge and ruin it so much, and get all my giants in a row so I can stand on their shoulders again, without making it intertwined with normie society so it can all fall over in glorious collapse like it did last year. In this "Witship", only those hypotheses which have been proven will be considered as such, and those areas where multiple outcomes may be possible, this will be made known and the outcomes and their pros and cons will be duly weighed. Such a witship will be effectively open source as anybody can follow their area of former expertise and make inputs or join the project themselves. The only rules are that the formal language of witship should be willsome. Not even necessarily willsome English, but willsome Estonian, Georgian, Cherokee, Sanskrit, Marathi, Tamil, Sinhala, Japanese, and all the rest of it.
Thus begins my research into a starting point for all study. Until then, I will post weekly blogposts on whatever cathes my ire.