I suspect this varies a lot by field? But you shouldn’t expect bad ideas to last long under conditions where the more that rests on them, the greater the *literal* bounty on a correction. And you should expect them to live long where there’s no bounty, only a guillotine
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
As much as I enjoy academia bashing, there are bounties there too. They might not take the form of cash but there are people who'd work tirelessly to be recognised for correcting a particular misconception. And there are other bounties too.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MatjazLeonardis @DavidDeutschOxf
I agree, but I think (a) they don’t operate as efficiently as a literal market, which is what VC is, and (b) they vary widely by field, which essentially accounts for what we call “rigor” (less confident on that point)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
I don't think rigour is the most important - it's caring about what the truth is that matters. If a community cares about that then people can advance in it by devoting their efforts to that. If instead a community cares about something else things tend to degenerate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MatjazLeonardis @DavidDeutschOxf
"If a community cares about that then people can advance in it by devoting their efforts to that." → But that community still needs to know what genuine truth-seeking looks like, which is easier when there is some actual gold to mine...you either come home with gold, or not.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
(For me, this manifests as a strong felt difference between e.g. "he was a great scientist, whose genius was only recognized after his death" and "he was a great businessman, whose genius was only recognized after his death.")
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
I really like this comparison but wouldn't it be more accurate to compare such a scientist with a businessman who builds a company that makes no profits during his lifetime but then after his death becomes massively profitable and lasts for generations?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MatjazLeonardis @DavidDeutschOxf
The question is: it just a coincidence that this scenario occurs infrequently enough to seem very weird, or does it suggest something about the nature of business?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
I don't think this scenario is that weird - lots of companies lose money before they make money. Some do this for decades. And while they do so they often have lots of detractors. So money-in-business and recognition-in-science are quite analogous.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I do think there is *something* about the nature of business that makes the culture that surrounds it a lot better than that of science/academia. I just don't think money is that thing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think money is a *big* part of The Thing, but there's another layer here that I'm struggling to pin down... basically, I would expect a for-profit company to develop better distribution systems for e.g. medical leeches than a non-profit, but that doesn't mean leeches work
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @DavidDeutschOxf
So one guess I'd have that is that since non-profits need money too they often end up serving two masters - they need to get the money *and* do whatever it is that they do. These two things often conflict and there is something about for-profit companies that aligns this better.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.