3 ms·

> If you are working problem X and people have looked this problem before, you should think doubly or triply before you claim your step-forward is necessary bec

> If you are working problem X and people have looked this problem before, you should think doubly or triply before you claim your step-forward is necessary because people as smart as you already tried to think of everything. At the same time, such reasoning is used to dismiss or discourage new attempts, often unfairly: - each of the earlier people were approaching that problem from a specific angle, and new people might be approaching it from an untried angle - the earlier people might have had limited time to really investigate the matter, so there may be unturned stones - advances since the earlier work may give newer researchers a leg up. Note that all of these apply even if (as is likely) the earlier researchers were very smart.

joe_the_user 9y ago
>>If you are working problem X and people have looked this problem before, you should think doubly or triply before you claim your step-forward is necessary because people as smart as you already tried to think of everything. > At the same time, such reasoning is used to dismiss or discourage new attempts, often unfairly Well, if you use such an approach of considering previous work, you will have the tools to show you why your work shouldn't be dismissed (whether you are believed or not is a different matter). If you aren't looking at earlier work, not only do people have good ammunition for dismissing your position but it really is hard to be sure you haven't just repeated something.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > if you use such an approach of considering previous work, you will have the tools to show you why your work shouldn't be dismissed (whether you are believed or not is a different matter) That doesn't mean you'll be listened to. You might, but that's no guarantee. There's also a situation you're overlooking: people being discouraged for the cited reason before they even start. "What's the point, if people as smart as you -- and possibly smarter, more senior, and with more of a reputation -- already tried to think of everything?". This can be something that the researcher can tell themselves. I was explaining why there can still be room for progress, even if lots of smart people have already explored the problem. > If you aren't looking at earlier work At no point was I suggesting people shouldn't look at earlier work.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    Well, as Thomas Kuhn said, science tends to proceed incrementally under normal circumstances. When science reaches a crisis, then there is a tendency to look towards solutions outside the normal paradigms. Conveniently, computer programming and invention offer other ways for what the OP called "tinkers" to demonstrate the effectiveness of their ideas. Science is imperfect, especially isn't necessarily about the latest, most exciting ideas but about making ideas reliable and the problem with being willing to quickly accept even plausible-sounding ideas is that they can also include a lot of dreck. But hey, there are many alternatives to scientific acceptance.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      I'm familiar with Kuhn. I'm not saying we should be quick to accept anything, nor am I making any point related to science vs tinkering. All I'm saying is that there are two sides to the statement I was originally responding to, and that they should both be considered.

joe_the_user 9y ago

>>If you are working problem X and people have looked this problem before, you should think doubly or triply before you claim your step-forward is necessary because people as smart as you already tried to think of everything. > At the same time, such reasoning is used to dismiss or discourage new attempts, often unfairly Well, if you use such an approach of considering previous work, you will have the tools to show you why your work shouldn't be dismissed (whether you are believed or not is a different matter). If you aren't looking at earlier work, not only do people have good ammunition for dismissing your position but it really is hard to be sure you haven't just repeated something.

jamesrcole 9y ago
> if you use such an approach of considering previous work, you will have the tools to show you why your work shouldn't be dismissed (whether you are believed or not is a different matter) That doesn't mean you'll be listened to. You might, but that's no guarantee. There's also a situation you're overlooking: people being discouraged for the cited reason before they even start. "What's the point, if people as smart as you -- and possibly smarter, more senior, and with more of a reputation -- already tried to think of everything?". This can be something that the researcher can tell themselves. I was explaining why there can still be room for progress, even if lots of smart people have already explored the problem. > If you aren't looking at earlier work At no point was I suggesting people shouldn't look at earlier work.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  Well, as Thomas Kuhn said, science tends to proceed incrementally under normal circumstances. When science reaches a crisis, then there is a tendency to look towards solutions outside the normal paradigms. Conveniently, computer programming and invention offer other ways for what the OP called "tinkers" to demonstrate the effectiveness of their ideas. Science is imperfect, especially isn't necessarily about the latest, most exciting ideas but about making ideas reliable and the problem with being willing to quickly accept even plausible-sounding ideas is that they can also include a lot of dreck. But hey, there are many alternatives to scientific acceptance.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    I'm familiar with Kuhn. I'm not saying we should be quick to accept anything, nor am I making any point related to science vs tinkering. All I'm saying is that there are two sides to the statement I was originally responding to, and that they should both be considered.