3 ms·

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new g

by sva_ 5y ago

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck

BurningFrog 5y ago
Often paraphrased as "Science advances one funeral at a time". Perhaps increasing life expectancy is what's holding progress back?
- falcor84 5y ago
  That makes sense, but I like the idea of longevity, and wouldn't want to their the baby with the bathwater. Maybe instead we could have some "term limit" for academic work?
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    I think we see the same “ageing stagnation” in business — where increasingly old business leaders don’t retire and maintain a stranglehold on resources. I think we need a more general cultural shift that the current generation needs to build up the next generation instead of keeping a death-grip on power that destroys their children and grandchildren.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      I don't know of any such companies, but US politics is getting done by very old people. The major players are now typically around 80, and that seems bad for many reasons!
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    Not, definitely a bad idea. You need a lot of resources, money and time to train an expert. Wouldn't be impossible to recover the investment.
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      s/wouldn't/would/
    - falcor84 5y ago
      Interesting angle. Would you have any empirical data on the amount of years of academic work needed to "break even"?
      - pvaldes 5y ago
        It depends in the issue, but IMAO on academia is not uncommon to spend about ten years studying a theme to became an expert on it. Plus university years. Plus school years. And there is a lot of inertia to not change your study subject. Researchers in some parts of Europe spend around 25 years of their life (if I remember correctly the article) just trying to have a stable job, and this is criminal. If you put an upper limit, the interval that remains is just too small to be profitable for the society and specially for the scientist. Nobody would want to do science. Academics also spend a lot of time teaching, doing bureaucracy, and finding funds. So you have a highly trained people spending most of their expensive time not doing research.

by sva_ 5y ago

BurningFrog 5y ago

Often paraphrased as "Science advances one funeral at a time". Perhaps increasing life expectancy is what's holding progress back?

falcor84 5y ago
That makes sense, but I like the idea of longevity, and wouldn't want to their the baby with the bathwater. Maybe instead we could have some "term limit" for academic work?
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  I think we see the same “ageing stagnation” in business — where increasingly old business leaders don’t retire and maintain a stranglehold on resources. I think we need a more general cultural shift that the current generation needs to build up the next generation instead of keeping a death-grip on power that destroys their children and grandchildren.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    I don't know of any such companies, but US politics is getting done by very old people. The major players are now typically around 80, and that seems bad for many reasons!
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Not, definitely a bad idea. You need a lot of resources, money and time to train an expert. Wouldn't be impossible to recover the investment.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    s/wouldn't/would/
  - falcor84 5y ago
    Interesting angle. Would you have any empirical data on the amount of years of academic work needed to "break even"?
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      It depends in the issue, but IMAO on academia is not uncommon to spend about ten years studying a theme to became an expert on it. Plus university years. Plus school years. And there is a lot of inertia to not change your study subject. Researchers in some parts of Europe spend around 25 years of their life (if I remember correctly the article) just trying to have a stable job, and this is criminal. If you put an upper limit, the interval that remains is just too small to be profitable for the society and specially for the scientist. Nobody would want to do science. Academics also spend a lot of time teaching, doing bureaucracy, and finding funds. So you have a highly trained people spending most of their expensive time not doing research.