After seeing a bunch of people get mad at this editorial proposing a "Progress Studies" field, I've concluded that the critics are wrong; an interdisciplinary program aimed at figuring out how to boost the rate of scientific discovery would have value.https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/we-need-new-science-progress/594946/ …
-
-
Yes. Check out this essay: https://www.nber.org/papers/w24674 Basically, it would have a mission ("propose concrete policies for increasing the rate of technological progress") and a powerful program manager, and would draw on people from multiple disciplines.
-
Of course, you could envision multiple such projects - one for increasing progress in each area, or one for increasing each aspect of progress. For example, you could have one project about how to increase the efficiency of NSF/NIH funding...
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Hi Patrick and Noah -- if you don't mind two cents from a humanist, I think there's a key concern that needs to be addressed: whether "progress studies" can be broad enough to include competing definitions of progress. And if not, then whether it should form a scholarly agenda.
-
It seems so from the article's definition: "By “progress,” we mean the combination of economic, technological, scientific, cultural, and organizational advancement that has transformed our lives and raised standards of living." So progress isn't just scientific discovery. /1
- 40 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
If I may try, one project could be to create an abstract cloud that institutes good devops practices, in a way that offers easy design, admin, entry and exit for support collectives working under well-defined and basic abstract org hierarchies.
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.