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
-
-
That seems like it undervalues Shannon's work on information theory... Did it obsolete any prior works at all? Otherwise, seems very useful.
-
The measure I'd suggest of Big Progress is discoveries that change the ontology in which we think. This is hard to do with correlational studies with p of .04. Outside of AI and genomics, I am hard pressed to name a serious field that recently switched to a different type system.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And companies
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This may be true of all things, including startups
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree about rendering superfluous, but as time passes, things are becoming less, not more understandable, by most people like "An electron is a quantised excitation of the Dirac field" vs "An electron is a negatively charged spinning ball".
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In this way, perhaps knowledge is exponential.
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.