is this Beginning of Infinity?
A fascinating criterion, from David Hilbert: "One can measure the importance of a scientific work by the number of earlier publications rendered superfluous by it." Reminds me of @DavidDeutschOxf:pic.twitter.com/klQ75MKq0L
-
-
-
Fabric of Reality.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Had similar thoughts a while ago when thinking about ‘rich’ citations, i.e. whether a citing work supported or refuted a claim of the cited work. With just this information it would be possible to build the graph right?
-
Interesting idea. For things like GR it's not clear to me it supports or refutes Newtonian gravity; more like it supersedes & deepens Newtonian gravity. Maybe need different types of citation? Interesting to think of citation tags as crowd-generated, not centrally mandated.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This may be true of all scholarship, not merely science.
-
That seems like it undervalues Shannon's work on information theory... Did it obsolete any prior works at all? Otherwise, seems very useful.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In the social sciences,
@PTetlock's 'Expert Political Judgment' comes to mind.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hilbert's criterion is great, but the Deutsch quotes strike me as being very much the limited view of a certain type of theoretical physicist.
-
There's some truth there, but it applies to one type of scientific progress, and it implicitly devalues progress that doesn't fit the template of "reduce and generalize." See also, Anderson's "more is different."
- 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.