Paradigmatic progress in the sciences has stalled since the 1970ies. There is disagreement about whether we have just figured out all the relevant paradigms, or whether we shifted from answering questions (which is cross disciplinary) to applying methods (cementing disciplines).
-
-
Autonomous intellects (like Wolfram) exist, but they are insular, because they don't integrate well with scientific institutions, so the mainstream does not perceive them as relevant. We don't see schools of modernist thinkers (like the cyberneticians or first gen AI) any more.
Show this thread -
This is especially blatant in academic AI: researchers don't take interesting stances about psychology or philosophy as they did in the 1960ies. There is also no consequential disagreement, just methodological competition between a focus on statistics, logic, applications etc.
Show this thread -
This coincides with understanding scientists as generic: ideas were once thought to be creations of individuals, now we think science is done by whoever we pay to do so. Status in science does not result from a unique perspective, but from diligence in an affirmative environment.
Show this thread -
There are no more Wiener, Turing, Minsky, Chomsky, Solomonoff, etc., not because great thinkers no longer exist, but because society at large cannot tell a public speaker from a deep thinker, and academia itself stopped caring about them.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.