3 ms·
That's a bad analogy, though. In one case, you have a group who has to examine, and a group that has to discover. They both employ high-level critical-thinking
by bsanr2 7y ago
That's a bad analogy, though. In one case, you have a group who has to examine, and a group that has to discover. They both employ high-level critical-thinking and creative-thinking skills, but their output of novel work under even normal circumstances differs due to the nature of their work.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoIt's good analogy and it's really much simpler. Physics is grounded in reality. Literary criticism isn't. This is because most of the former is experimentally verifiable, or follows from experimentally verifiable results via a chain of rigorous formal reasoning[0]. In other words: you can't bullshit others as much in physics as you can in literature, and more importantly for being smart, you can't bullshit yourself. You have constant feedback from observable reality, which lets you refine your thinking abilities much better. -- [0] - You'll note that the weirdest, most nonsense things in physics happen in places that are furthest from any experimental verification.
- bsanr2 7y agoOkay, but there are two responses inline with mine that show physics literature as easily bullshit-able. Also, no, it's a really bad analogy, for the reasons stated.