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).
-
-
do you think if they emerged in today’s academic climate they would have had similar success levels? my hunch is no
-
No, they wouldn't. People of this calibre must still exist in our generation, and some of them must still hang around in academia. There it little funding for new paradigms, but more importantly, there is not much of an environment that would recognize and nourish them.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It gets even harder when well-known deep thinkers turn into neocons hiding behind their reputation, ... like e.g. Peter Sloterdijk. How I miss speakers like Hoimar von Dithfurt. Ok, that‘s a bit of a German scope - sorry if you never heard of them.
-
I am German, but I don't think that you can be a deep thinker today without formal skills. Sloterdijk is a publicist imho. (Nothing wrong with that.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Merry Christmas to you as well.
-
And to you, dear Philipp!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ok...any deep thinkers that I should follow outside the usual suspects?
-
Mike Johnson from Qualia Research Institute http://opentheory.net/2018/08/a-future-for-neuroscience/ …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Good points.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It might be both. Radio, atomic power, microwave, computer, satellites, etc. so many to new paradigms. But what since the 80s? More improvements, deeper understanding, but what is fundamentally new? Maybe that is what we see?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.