Feynman’s science lesson for entrepreneurs: Challenge authority. • Hacker News Board

Re: Feynman’s science lesson for entrepreneurs: Challenge authority.

#21

Post by improvisations » Tue, May 22, 2012, 2:16 AM UTC

ollerac wrote: post #18

feral wrote: post #12

I'm not sure if Feynman would endorse the scientific framing that is being applied, in that article, to the haphazard process by which society evolves. Science experiments should try and be, at least to some extent, repeatable. When the article starts talking about 'social experiments', e.g.: "He’s referring to laws of nature of course, but let’s take a step back and imagine that society is a scientific enterprise. D…

If an experiment works, who cares how rigorous it was? For the example of a society I think a good metric would be: "How many people enjoy living in this particular society and don't want to move away?" We wouldn't need to make any big changes right away because we could start experimenting with what we have already: cities and towns. How about this: "Cities and towns can create some of their own laws (but only certa…

Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example).

There is a section on "Exit and Voice" which discusses this on www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory as well as a practical entrepreneurial proposal called "Free Cities" here: http://www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory/free-cities/

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

Re: Feynman’s science lesson for entrepreneurs: Challenge authority.

#22

Post by ollerac » Tue, May 22, 2012, 2:40 AM UTC

improvisations wrote: post #21

ollerac wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an experiment works, who cares how rigorous it was? For the example of a society I think a good metric would be: "How many people enjoy living in this particular society and don't want to move away?" We wouldn't need to make any big changes right away because we could start experimenting with what we have already: cities and towns. How about this: "Cities and towns can create some of their own laws (but only certa…

Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example). There is a section on "Exit and Voice" which discusses this on www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory as w…

Thank you for your thought-provoking blog post. I think wide-scale group experimentation and play is slowly becoming much more incorporated into our daily lives and I'd love to see that process speed up.

Organizations like Groupon, LivingSocial, Airbnb, Kickstarter and (around where I live) The Boston Society of Spontaneity are all encouraging people to get out and make more random, meaningful connections. I look forward to the day when these organizations, ideas like thepoint.com, and the concept of something like a "sanctuary city" [1] are more commonplace and acceptable.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Re: Feynman’s science lesson for entrepreneurs: Challenge authority.

#23

Post by Oscarus » Tue, May 22, 2012, 3:11 AM UTC

Jun8 wrote: post #5

Eugenics in this context is a bad example, because in this case controlled breeding definitely gets results, i.e. the theory (sort of) agrees with the theory, at least in the case of animals. You should thank such manipulative practices when you are enjoying a seedless banana. Of course, the practice is abhorrent! But, and I think this is important, the ethical part has nothing to do with the science part. Consider t…

I was going to say something similar, although it would have been more polemical ;)...

Eugenics is a bad example because it is something popularly believed to be false, not least among those who consider themselves knowledgeable, but in reality, is not necessarily scientifically baseless.

Often, it is precisely those who bid you "question everything!" and "speak truth to power!" who will brook no dissent when their deeply held beliefs come up for debate. One example, related to eugenics, is the study of intelligence. A survey of scientific experts in the field[1] found that a far greater proportion of them supported the 'hereditarian hypothesis' of intelligence being partly heritable, than the media let on; the views the press described as 'beyond the pale' among scientists were actually common, if not orthodox, among the actual scientists, even on the most controversial of questions.

The real story is that these scientists don't publicize their findings lest their field falls into disrepute and their funding gets pulled. Instead, they labor quietly, proceeding apace with their research in obscure journals unknown to the public.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyderman_and_Rothman_(study)

Re: Feynman’s science lesson for entrepreneurs: Challenge authority.

#24

Post by hammock » Tue, May 22, 2012, 4:11 AM UTC

improvisations wrote: post #21

ollerac wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an experiment works, who cares how rigorous it was? For the example of a society I think a good metric would be: "How many people enjoy living in this particular society and don't want to move away?" We wouldn't need to make any big changes right away because we could start experimenting with what we have already: cities and towns. How about this: "Cities and towns can create some of their own laws (but only certa…

Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example). There is a section on "Exit and Voice" which discusses this on www.radicalsocialentreps.org/theory as w…

Ollerac is definitely onto what I was arguing in this article. Allowing people to 'opt-in' and vote with their feet in a system with greater policy experimentation through decentralized, competing jurisdictions is perhaps the closest we can get to scientific rigor (holding culture relatively constant, for example).

Sounds like Bayesian vs. A/B testing. e.g. http://blog.custora.com/2012/05/a-bayesian-approach-to-ab-te... or http://www.mynaweb.com/blog/2011/09/13/myna-vs-ab.html Something that's not repeatable but works in an open system full of people, not experimental objects

Re: Feynman’s science lesson for entrepreneurs: Challenge authority.

#25

Post by spitfire » Tue, May 22, 2012, 6:06 AM UTC

ollerac wrote: post #18

feral wrote: post #12

I'm not sure if Feynman would endorse the scientific framing that is being applied, in that article, to the haphazard process by which society evolves. Science experiments should try and be, at least to some extent, repeatable. When the article starts talking about 'social experiments', e.g.: "He’s referring to laws of nature of course, but let’s take a step back and imagine that society is a scientific enterprise. D…

If an experiment works, who cares how rigorous it was? For the example of a society I think a good metric would be: "How many people enjoy living in this particular society and don't want to move away?" We wouldn't need to make any big changes right away because we could start experimenting with what we have already: cities and towns. How about this: "Cities and towns can create some of their own laws (but only certa…

You can't determine if an experiment works or not if it isn't rigorous.