21–30 of 32 posts
You need to accumulate more knowledge and do more work before the breakthrough. Meaning you have to start very early on your highly specialized journey.
Are there any recent (past 50 years or so) examples of someone doing great work in some field, but who started late (say age 25 or 30)?
If the cause is indeed that it takes longer to get on top of increasing complex fields, then it doesn't bode well for the singularity - when scientists run out of lifespan (e.g. you have to be over 100 to get on top of the field), no more breakthroughs. Of course, it would be really cool if the entire field was overturned with a new abstraction that simplifies the previous epicyclic complexity, and opening up a new s…
It's another reason why we need to cure aging, just in case the reduced quality of life and huge medical expenses weren't enough.
The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong. In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is pre…
What the article hints at is the reason for this shift: You need to accumulate more knowledge and do more work before the breakthrough. Meaning you have to start very early on your highly specialized journey. Are there any recent (past 50 years or so) examples of someone doing great work in some field, but who started late (say age 25 or 30)?
Feynman formulated the path integral at age 30
The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong. In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is pre…
For instance, the thing that corresponds to general relativity today is quantum gravity. Other paths exist, but the two that are most traveled are string theory and loop quantum gravity. The math involved in either one is considerably heavier than Einstein's relatively theory, and neither one is in a place where you can calculate real observable things.
There's plenty of (b) to go around, but it's hard to believe we'd know what dark matter is, discover supersymmetry, or have an established "theory of everything" if we cleared away the cobwebs.
In other words, the barrier to entry has been raised in science. Nobody is going to place a 25 year old Phd in charge of a major chemistry research laboratory these days.
On the other hand, in software development, the arts, and other creative fields with low barriers to entry, younger people continue to demonstrate genius regularly.
The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong. In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is pre…
or c.) random chance. Kuhn would say that science consists of long periods of "normal science", in which people flesh out basic theories that have been known for decades, and short periods of "paradigm shifts", where previously ignored evidence is suddenly incorporated into brand-new, world-shifting theories that completely upend the old order. Just because you happen to be in one of those long doldrums of normal sci…
Again, mere time is a bad metric for baseline progress.
The wrong assumption they are making is that the pace of science is constant, so that Nobel prizes (which are given out at a constant rate) are a rough approximation of progress. In physics, at least, this is very wrong. In fact, fundamental theoretical physics has been more-or-less stagnant since the late 60's when the Standard Model was finished. But they have to keep handing out Nobel prizes. So the outcome is pre…
(a) is primary. Problems in physics are much harder to solve than they were. For instance, the thing that corresponds to general relativity today is quantum gravity. Other paths exist, but the two that are most traveled are string theory and loop quantum gravity. The math involved in either one is considerably heavier than Einstein's relatively theory, and neither one is in a place where you can calculate real observ…