don't think they have to be clearly foreseeable as long as they're still iterated refinements of base ideas that were laid out in the 1700s. we have QM, relativity & mature non-euclidian geometry now but lots of problems are still solved in euclidian or newtonian domains
Heh, I just have a strong immune response to argument by authority in general, on subjects where there are no viewpoint privileges except time (as opposed to for eg astronomy with its instruments). My first theory of anything political is generally my own prima facie one.
-
-
I don't mind reinventing wheels at all. In fact I think that's a necessary human activity. A lot of people comment that my Gervais Principle analysis is Marxist for eg. I'm sure it was in the osmotic environment, but I've read zero Marxist theory. But reinvention was good.
-
agreed it's often good and necessary but opportunity cost is prohibitive. I guess it's just that; it doesn't bother me at all when ppl trying to understand the world in an intellectually honest way reinvent a few wheels in the process -- or, hey, even all of them, why not >
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
oh yeah, but there's arguing from authority and there's "ppl who go on to do things that have real effects and consequences all tend to read x, y and z and take them as authoritative therefore if you want to get how things work you've got to deal with x, y & z sooner or later"
-
the line can be subtle but I try to stay on the right side of it
End of conversation
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.