For an outsider to an academic discipline, it can be hard to distinguish between scientific consensus and groupthink. (From inside a discipline, we can of course flawlessly distinguish the good groupthink from the bad one.)
Eventually, one can only understand the depths of a scientific discipline if they understand the shared AND individual ideas of their leading thinkers.
-
-
The “why” of sci progress evolves organically. It surprises even Nobel laureates, (who comprehend their allowable limits + “thinker ideas” of a discipline, yet use the word “surprisingly” in 85% of papers, [total guess there]). Science brachiates more often than text books.
-
I would be surprised if Nobel laureates' uses of "surprisingly" has a significantly larger TF/IDF than for other thinkers in their field. The expressions of surprise should be more frequent in the peers that review their work?
- 1 more reply
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.