A bunch of years ago a professor at the School of Education at a local university called for a public symposium to mark the end of a massive multi-year $50 Million foundation grant to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and to examine the results of the project called Learn. For many years banners on Districts school fences announced "We are a Learn school!". People from the District and from the Foundation shared experiences and reluctantly concluded that, honestly, nothing had really changed - the new hoped-for "learning" culture had not arisen and it was pretty much business-as-usual in the classrooms. Why, they wondered. And here's to your point, Seth. The people from the District said they constantly felt hampered by the Foundation's need to see results (test scores) and the Foundation people said they were constantly surprised by the lack of creativity and boldness by the District. There was a moment I will never forget when the leads of both 'sides' looked at each other onstage and said - in essence - Huh, we thought YOU were the problem. Dead silence in the room.
Recent article on Pfizer, possibly in the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post, focused on them going against this trend in their research. The result was more rapid development of new products. Even with an a “closed shop” greater freedom to explore the less known has benefits.
Thanks for this article Seth. Two thoughts came to mind in reading this: firstly, I wonder if computer generated modeling plays into this phenomena. Since scientific research seems to rely on it more and more these days - has it replaced original creative human thinking to some degree? And the second thought is an observation that at the same time disruptive science has been declining, technological advancement [mostly digital tech] has been skyrocketing. I presume this advancement must rely on some amount of new science - nanotech and muons - whatever those things are - yet I suppose the point is that the major theories that made this advancement possible were all laid out by guys like Newton and Leibniz and other dudes that lived a long time ago and who probably had to answer to the church or a king and not some corporate financial backer.
The timidity of modern science
A bunch of years ago a professor at the School of Education at a local university called for a public symposium to mark the end of a massive multi-year $50 Million foundation grant to the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and to examine the results of the project called Learn. For many years banners on Districts school fences announced "We are a Learn school!". People from the District and from the Foundation shared experiences and reluctantly concluded that, honestly, nothing had really changed - the new hoped-for "learning" culture had not arisen and it was pretty much business-as-usual in the classrooms. Why, they wondered. And here's to your point, Seth. The people from the District said they constantly felt hampered by the Foundation's need to see results (test scores) and the Foundation people said they were constantly surprised by the lack of creativity and boldness by the District. There was a moment I will never forget when the leads of both 'sides' looked at each other onstage and said - in essence - Huh, we thought YOU were the problem. Dead silence in the room.
Recent article on Pfizer, possibly in the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post, focused on them going against this trend in their research. The result was more rapid development of new products. Even with an a “closed shop” greater freedom to explore the less known has benefits.
https://open.substack.com/pub/theoriapress/p/on-the-supposed-dialectic-between?r=hef4u&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post Post by Max Leyf adds to this conversation - he proposes that govt censorship of ‘misinformation’ denied us the pleasure of argumentation to correct I (or confirm earth’s spherical nature)
Thanks for this article Seth. Two thoughts came to mind in reading this: firstly, I wonder if computer generated modeling plays into this phenomena. Since scientific research seems to rely on it more and more these days - has it replaced original creative human thinking to some degree? And the second thought is an observation that at the same time disruptive science has been declining, technological advancement [mostly digital tech] has been skyrocketing. I presume this advancement must rely on some amount of new science - nanotech and muons - whatever those things are - yet I suppose the point is that the major theories that made this advancement possible were all laid out by guys like Newton and Leibniz and other dudes that lived a long time ago and who probably had to answer to the church or a king and not some corporate financial backer.