3 ms·
We do point, but we cannot prove. We have no real control group to speak of. It's looking to me like it's not so much specific policies as large cultural chang
by namenotrequired 6y ago
We do point, but we cannot prove. We have no real control group to speak of.
It's looking to me like it's not so much specific policies as large cultural changes, or at least whole categories of policies. "Let's get rid of a century of safety regulations now to have some more innovation in a few decades" is possibly a good utilitarian decision but also a very, very tough sell.
Edit: I think you are on the right track. We need to understand better what caused it. There are quite plausibly more than one reason for the great stagnation and hopefully some are easier to change than others.
- lliamander 6y agoThanks. My personal theory (take it for what it's worth) is that at least two major factors in the stagnation: The first technical. Scientific advancement seems to be dependent upon two technical factors: our tools of observation (which includes mathematical tools like statistics which help us to "see" patterns in data) and the ability to produce energy. We need better tools for "seeing" and more abundant energy to make further advancements. The second factor is social. Scientific innovation requires creativity, but scientific institutions are increasingly hostile to the needs of creativity.