"Science isn’t the sum of what scientists think. Had science operated by majority consensus we would be still stuck in the Middle Ages and Einstein would have ended as he started, a patent clerk with fruitless side hobbies." — Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Einstein needed poincare, and maxwell, Boltzmann and the mob of experimentalista to prove his theories. Part of science is the ability to shift to the preciously unthinkable . It’s still a sum, just certain factors are larger and negative with respect to the previous factors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dxppxr_dxn
As an isolated individual, the human mind is too small and short lived to bootstrap itself into general intelligence. But that does not make truth social! Quite the opposite: Science needs to favor the radical pursuit of truth over social alignment.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
truth itself is certainly not social! It is truth. But the pursuit of truth is social. Because you are right, the human mind is too small and short. Without the social we would be without the truth. We have to distinguish between Science the tool and science the group of humans.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Perhaps it helps if you dissect the notion of sociality. I don't think that the ability to learn language and read what others write will necessarily qualify as social in an interesting sense. But adapting your beliefs to what others think is social, and does not maximize truth.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.