3 ms·

You are completely right, I guess "Good artists copy; great artists steal". Here's a related, although sort of tangent, NPR episode about originality: https://

You are completely right, I guess "Good artists copy; great artists steal". Here's a related, although sort of tangent, NPR episode about originality: https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/321797073/what-is-original https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/321797073/what-i... Also, even in neuroscience this is not new at all, Maturana and Varela researched and wrote about this subject extensively, their book The Tree of Knowledge is a good starter.

keiferski 7y ago
I don't think it relates to originality at all. If you're interested in solving a problem, it helps to understand or at least be aware of the underlying foundations of it. A whole lot of modern scientists don't seem to understand the basics of empiricism (what science is) or philosophy of science in general. Thus you get situations like this one, where an apparently brilliant neuroscientist reaches a conclusion that a philosopher in Ancient Greece did 2,300 years ago. It's a waste of time and resources that could have been avoided by simply educating scientists on the history of philosophy. Why is this the current state of affairs? My guess is because Anglo-American academic philosophy [1] has gone a little too far down the language analysis hole and subsequently isn't perceived as relevant by scientists. It's a tragedy and unfortunately the supposed irrelevance of philosophy continues to be perpetuated by science popularizers. [1] The academic philosophy traditions in continental Europe and the English-speaking world have drifted apart over the past ±150 years. You see less of this blatant ignorance of philosophy in somewhere like France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
- ta1234567890 7y ago
  > Thus you get situations like this one, where an apparently brilliant neuroscientist reaches a conclusion that a philosopher in Ancient Greece did 2,300 years ago. Or, this scientist did the research, learned about what philosophers did 2300 years ago and then adapted/repackaged the message/knowledge in a way that fits his audience. Also, in your statement you are essentially saying the scientist was not original because he reached the same conclusion as someone else before him. Then you conclude that being unoriginal is a waste of resources. So of course this relates to originality.

keiferski 7y ago

I don't think it relates to originality at all. If you're interested in solving a problem, it helps to understand or at least be aware of the underlying foundations of it. A whole lot of modern scientists don't seem to understand the basics of empiricism (what science is) or philosophy of science in general. Thus you get situations like this one, where an apparently brilliant neuroscientist reaches a conclusion that a philosopher in Ancient Greece did 2,300 years ago. It's a waste of time and resources that could have been avoided by simply educating scientists on the history of philosophy. Why is this the current state of affairs? My guess is because Anglo-American academic philosophy [1] has gone a little too far down the language analysis hole and subsequently isn't perceived as relevant by scientists. It's a tragedy and unfortunately the supposed irrelevance of philosophy continues to be perpetuated by science popularizers. [1] The academic philosophy traditions in continental Europe and the English-speaking world have drifted apart over the past ±150 years. You see less of this blatant ignorance of philosophy in somewhere like France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

ta1234567890 7y ago
> Thus you get situations like this one, where an apparently brilliant neuroscientist reaches a conclusion that a philosopher in Ancient Greece did 2,300 years ago. Or, this scientist did the research, learned about what philosophers did 2300 years ago and then adapted/repackaged the message/knowledge in a way that fits his audience. Also, in your statement you are essentially saying the scientist was not original because he reached the same conclusion as someone else before him. Then you conclude that being unoriginal is a waste of resources. So of course this relates to originality.