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).
-
Show this thread
-
-
Replying to @davidarredondo
How would you explain that there is one guy and not a discourse?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
That's a good question but it hinges on what you consider discourse and avoids mine. However I consider the Dawkins- Deutsch- Hofstader interpenetration a discourse - as will hindsight.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
As I said, I don’t think that capable thinkers suddenly disappeared, but the context in which they had effective paradigmatic debates did.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Please be more concrete. What do you mean by context in which they had effective debates? Conferences? correspondence, socially? It sounds too easy to vary to be much of an explanation of anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @davidarredondo
Intellectually liberal symposia and workshops still exist (like FQXI), but they don’t seem to have a small effect on what gets tenure and grants. Even the interdisciplinary centers at top US universities don’t chat with the Weltgeist very much.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
It is virtually impossible to look for tenure and grants and Truth at the same time. One can serve only one master at the level of sincerity required. Not impossible, but extremely difficult in academia.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @davidarredondo
Academia is still the place that has the best niches for that. Researchers outside of academia tend to be engineers or amateurs, with very few exceptions. The whole thread tried to point at some possible change in the core values of academia that has rendered it almost impotent.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Every scientist I know agrees that would be better if scientists would not distort their work because they need to look for tenure and grants, and instead the tenure and grants were looking for them. :)
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
All the REAL scientists I've known didn't see tenure as their goal. Nor grants. Nor public acclaim. these were seen as minor and potentially necessary evils that go along with being a human on this planet at this time.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.