4 ms·

> you might end up doing "normal science" Note that Kuhn doesn't think that normal science is bad in general. Normal science - incremental, systematic research

> you might end up doing "normal science" Note that Kuhn doesn't think that normal science is bad in general. Normal science - incremental, systematic research within a scientific community with clear, well-defined rules and solution methods - is necessary and worthwhile, IF you have a good paradigm. When Scott Aaronson publishes a new proof about some obscure or exotic quantum computational complexity class, that is valuable normal science. When the Intel researchers in the 80s or 90s came up with the umpteenth optimization trick that enabled next year's scheduled Moore's Law microprocessor speed doubling, that is valuable normal science. The problem comes when researchers try to do normal science without a good paradigm, either because they never had one to begin with, or because their old paradigm broke down. For example, it looks like the statistics-based paradigm that guided research in psychology is breaking down, because of the replication crisis. Kuhn's advice to people in this situation would be to re-examine the philosophical basis of the field, NOT to continue on doing business as usual.

HSO 10y ago
> Note that Kuhn doesn't think that normal science is bad in general. Yeah, I did not write that well. I was thinking too much about myself. From a population point of view, I agree with you (or Kuhn) that "normal science" is a necessary and valuable part of the enterprise. It would be inefficient to have everybody constantly questioning everything. You need the "normals" to milk a given paradigm for all its worth and the rebels to keep the paradigm, if you will, "on its toes" and replace it when the time has come. It seems to me commerce is not dissimilar. Not everybody can or should be a wide-eyed entrepreneur. You need people who compete within a business model (in the process wringing all the efficiencies to be had out of it) as well as entrepreneurs who create and thus compete between business models. I wonder if there is an optimal proportion between entrepreneurial/rebellious "predators" and "normals".
- hueving 10y ago
  http://aaronhoos.com/2011/03/03/3-kinds-of-entrepreneurs-which-one-are-you/ http://aaronhoos.com/2011/03/03/3-kinds-of-entrepreneurs-whi...
cJ0th 10y ago
> Kuhn's advice to people in this situation would be to re-examine the philosophical basis of the field, NOT to continue on doing business as usual. I am not familiar with Kuhn but the statements you echo resonate deeply with me. I hope in some places academics do shift their paradigm (when necessary) but from what I've seen at uni the outlook is bleak. Researchers do x for years, built up their reputation by doing so and at some point their ego is so big that they don't dare asking themselves whether they've wasted years doing something very stupid. Even worse, these people favor PhD candidates that are willing to follow their footsteps.

HSO 10y ago

> Note that Kuhn doesn't think that normal science is bad in general. Yeah, I did not write that well. I was thinking too much about myself. From a population point of view, I agree with you (or Kuhn) that "normal science" is a necessary and valuable part of the enterprise. It would be inefficient to have everybody constantly questioning everything. You need the "normals" to milk a given paradigm for all its worth and the rebels to keep the paradigm, if you will, "on its toes" and replace it when the time has come. It seems to me commerce is not dissimilar. Not everybody can or should be a wide-eyed entrepreneur. You need people who compete within a business model (in the process wringing all the efficiencies to be had out of it) as well as entrepreneurs who create and thus compete between business models. I wonder if there is an optimal proportion between entrepreneurial/rebellious "predators" and "normals".

hueving 10y ago
http://aaronhoos.com/2011/03/03/3-kinds-of-entrepreneurs-which-one-are-you/ http://aaronhoos.com/2011/03/03/3-kinds-of-entrepreneurs-whi...

cJ0th 10y ago

> Kuhn's advice to people in this situation would be to re-examine the philosophical basis of the field, NOT to continue on doing business as usual. I am not familiar with Kuhn but the statements you echo resonate deeply with me. I hope in some places academics do shift their paradigm (when necessary) but from what I've seen at uni the outlook is bleak. Researchers do x for years, built up their reputation by doing so and at some point their ego is so big that they don't dare asking themselves whether they've wasted years doing something very stupid. Even worse, these people favor PhD candidates that are willing to follow their footsteps.