Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
mattsclancy.substack.com
Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
1–10 of 66 posts
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#2This primarily I think applies to ACADEMIC science.
The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funded, so getting funding is a top priority?
Adding to this there is a major push now on DEI and other types of policy work which are not always directly scientific idea focused. Then there are compliance costs (you need to train your researches on project costing / job codes for payroll, procurement processes with federal funds etc) and ideally get them the NIH training (see below for a reading list).
me and white supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World, and Become a Good Ancestor, Layla F. Saad
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, Michelle Alexander
United States and Racism Systemic: Explicate the systemic nature of institutionalized racism, Steven Turam
How We Fight White Supremacy: A Field Guide to Black Resistance, Akiba Solomon and Kenrya Rankin
So you have a lot on your plate - not that this is a bad thing, but just to be aware of it.
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#3Physicist and Bayesian pioneer E. T. Janes had a pithy take on this theme:
In any field, the Establishment is seldom in pursuit of the truth, because it is composed of those who sincerely believe that they are already in possession of it.
From Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, E.T. Jaynes, 2003.
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#4Physicist and Bayesian pioneer E. T. Janes had a pithy take on this theme: In any field, the Establishment is seldom in pursuit of the truth, because it is composed of those who sincerely believe that they are already in possession of it. From Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, E.T. Jaynes, 2003.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#5For fields especially resistant to new ideas, Egyptology takes the prize.
Thus far surface luminescence has been used only once, and produced results only just barely acceptable. A chip from a facing stone of one of the Giza pyramids, and from the Valley Temple showed an age of 5000 years, +/- 500 years, where the officially assumed age is 4500 years. That was enough of that!
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#6I don't find the measure of novelty in the article convincing. This seems more like a proxy for how inter-disciplinary the work is.
It also isn't necessarily a bad thing if most research aims to be somewhat safe, though of course this should not be taken too far. "Safe" research means there is a good chance of obtaining useful results. Usually we know this because we're using e.g. a known and established method on a somewhat unknown, but focused problem.
More risky research is also needed, but even then it might be possible to split it into parts that still have value on their own. There is certainly a problem here for younger scientists as they need results to advance their career. That usually means that somewhat safer, but not too safe research is in the best interest of those researchers.
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#7My former academic supervisor’s former academic supervisor died in 2009. He was big name in his field.
When I offered my condolences, my professor said “It’s ok. When a mighty tree falls, it can be sad, but it means the light can reach all the little saplings down below”.
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#8For fields especially resistant to new ideas, Egyptology takes the prize. Thus far surface luminescence has been used only once, and produced results only just barely acceptable. A chip from a facing stone of one of the Giza pyramids, and from the Valley Temple showed an age of 5000 years, +/- 500 years, where the officially assumed age is 4500 years. That was enough of that!
I didn’t know about surface luminescence dating. For others who’d like to read the paper on using it to date monuments: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263201697_Surface_l...
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#9Physicist and Bayesian pioneer E. T. Janes had a pithy take on this theme: In any field, the Establishment is seldom in pursuit of the truth, because it is composed of those who sincerely believe that they are already in possession of it. From Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, E.T. Jaynes, 2003.
It's funny that the article rather explicitly rejects such theories of malfeasance/corruption/etc. and, instead, points to cognitive effects interacting with the decision-making process as a plausible cause that is compatible with assumptions of good faith and competence.
So, arguably, the only person confident of being in possession of the truth is the one with the ready-made cynical quote.
Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science
#10The thing about this article is it seems to make the implicit assumption that hostility to novelty is a bad thing. I don't think that's justified. Obviously, allow no new ideas into a field and it will die but allow too many new ideas into a field and you have a recipe for the field becoming a pseudo-science.
Before you propose changes to allow more ideas in, it would be appropriate to have some measure of whether a field is too tight or too in the amount of ideas it allow now.