Trigger warning: anti-science rant. "Science requires a substantial amount of creativity. In fact, they are necessary. The nature of breakthroughs requisite th

Trigger warning: anti-science rant. "Science requires a substantial amount of creativity. In fact, they are necessary. The nature of breakthroughs requisite thinking outside the box and breaking from convention." And if you do not have adequate depth in philosophy, you may find yourself parsing this seemingly simple phrase in a highly misinformative manner - as just one example: are you measuring things on a relative scale or an absolute scale? Also: are you actually measuring things, or are you....doing something much more interesting, that may not be obvious (and thus not taken into consideration)? > What I would say are real limits to creativity are the arbitrary and absurd evaluation metrics we use. Indeed! > The need to innovate also prevents replication, which is the basis of science! And also a substantial, rarely discussed drag on progress, across several dimensions! > It is far more difficult, often nearly impossible, to get funding or even approval to replicate works. That which is not studied, is unlikely to be understood, and this lack of understanding may register as NULL (as in: it may not be on one's radar, thus it "is" "nonexistent", as fans of science will assure you passionately, "because The Science says"). That science actually says the opposite is of no help - be it religion or science, once the Normie mind is captured, it's a goner. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventure_of_Silver_Blaze ------------------- Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention? Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time. Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time. Holmes: That was the curious incident. ------------------- > The pursuit of novelty is also not only fundamentally anti-scientific but the basis of an existential crisis. An ideological simulation, but also very true for science as it is imho. > Science is the process of ruling things out, not confirming things. There's also a substantial streetlight effect going on in science. Of course, such things are unavoidable to some degree, but not the degree to which they currently are in science, and there is also the issue of whether this is realized and disclosed, regularly and without aversion (as opposed to only when one gets caught telling some tall tales about science's abilities and on the ground performance, much of which is unknown and unknowable....maybe this is why science types tend to mock &/or hate philosophy and the skilful practice of it so much). > But by nature, science is anti-authority and highly creative. Including to it's own beliefs (including invisible metaphysical axioms) and authority? Science, comprehensively, is what it is - and, what that is, precisely, is unknown. <--- I propose that this is not knowable to most scientific thinkers, including many(!) highly competent scientists. Typically, the mind won't even allow the proposition to be contemplated, often only heuristic processing (guess according to one's sub-perceptual biases + post-hoc-rationalize, or downvote/delete-via-moderation/throttle) is available....all of which has very real consequences (though, we cannot measure them, thus they do not exist, so we are told and trained to think). Gee, what could go wrong with this approach!! (Possibly related: wow, there sure seems to be a lot of suboptimality in the world....could these two things maybe be related!!???? lol) > You _must_ challenge pre-existing notions (trust but verify) and you must think outside the box. Actually, you do not have to - only pretending* to do this is also very effective, and common.