3 ms·
Alternative theory: we've pretty much nailed the basics and it takes a PhD before people can even understand the frontier of most scientific fields. These fron
by klyrs 4y ago
Alternative theory: we've pretty much nailed the basics and it takes a PhD before people can even understand the frontier of most scientific fields. These frontiers are manifold, highly technical, and extremely boring to the layperson. Number theory is a very clear example of this: go read the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture. Come back in a decade after you understand the Tate–Shafarevich group. (hahahaha just kidding, if you understood that you'd have proved the conjecture)
- klabb3 4y agoI’ve heard this too about number theory. Perhaps in that field, the paradigm shift lies in reducing incidental complexity? Or even managing it in a way that is better for humans? > it takes a PhD before people can even understand the frontier of most scientific fields It’s interesting that we have this implicit view that hyper-specialization is the only way to advance. I always thought so too, but why really? If you think about it, specialization is very close to incrementalism. Groundbreaking paradigm-shift stuff can often be written down on a napkin, and rarely does it require a PhD. That said, to find treasure you have to go down a LOT of wrong paths before you (or someone else) ends up in the right one.
- mansoon 4y agoThere’s not a lot left that fits on a napkin. All sequences of tokens below length n have been enumerated.
- DonaldFisk 4y agoThis was considered in the paper: "Some point to a dearth of ‘low-hanging fruit’ as the readily available productivity-enhancing innovations have already been made19,27. Others emphasize the increasing burden of knowledge; scientists and inventors require ever more training to reach the frontiers of their fields, leaving less time to push those frontiers forward18,28. "