| ▲ | godelski 2 days ago |
| > I feel like this sentence is in every article for a reason.
Breakthroughs, BY DEFINITION, come from people going against the grain. Breakthroughs are paradigm shifts. You don't shift the paradigm by following the paradigm.I think we do a lot of disservice by dismissing the role of the dark horses. They are necessary. Like you suggest, there are many that fail, probably most do. But considering the impact, even just a small percentage succeeding warrants significant encouragement. Yet we often act in reverse, we discourage going against the grain. Often with reasons about fear of failure. In research, most things fail. But the only real failure is the ones you don't learn from (currently it is very hard to publish negative results. Resulting it not even being attempted. The system encourages "safe" research, which by its nature, can only be incremental. Fine, we want this, but it's ironic considering how many works get rejected due to "lack of novelty") |
|
| ▲ | globnomulous a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Breakthroughs, BY DEFINITION, come from people going against the grain. Breakthroughs are paradigm shifts. This is wrong. It's not inherent in the meaning of the word "breakthrough" that a breakthrough can occur only when someone has gone against the grain, and there are countless breakthroughs that have not gone against the grain. See: the four-minute mile; the Manhattan Project; the sequencing of the human genome; the decipherment of Linear B; research into protein folding. These breakthroughs have largely been the result of being first to find the solution to the problem or cross the theshold. That's it. That doesn't mean the people who managed to do that were working against the grain. > Yet we often act in reverse, we discourage going against the grain. Often with reasons about fear of failure. I don't know which "we" you're referring to, but just about everybody would agree with the statement that it's good to think creatively, experiment, and pursue either new lines of inquiry or old lines in new ways, so, again, your claim seems clearly wrong. If you're discussing just scientific research, though, sure, there are plenty of incentives that encourage labs and PIs to make the safe choice rather than the bold or innovative choice. |
| |
| ▲ | abraae a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Sounds like an argument over semantics and the meaning of the word "breakthrough". Running the 4 minute mile, climbing everest - those are achievements rather than breakthroughs. I'd also class the atomic bomb as an achievement - it was the expected/desired result of a massive investment program - though no doubt there were many breakthroughs required in order to achieve that result. | | |
| ▲ | globnomulous a day ago | parent [-] | | Yup, it's semantics, because the comment I answered stresses "by definition." My point is partly that that isn't the definition. Even if we decide that breakthroughs require some kind of discontinuity, break, or, as the comment said, "paradigm shift," such discontinuity isn't necessarily "against the grain," as this would imply some kind of resistance to or rejection of "the grain." | | |
| ▲ | godelski 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Words in fact can mean multiple things. If you understood what I meant then why turn it into something different unless you just want to argue? | | |
| ▲ | globnomulous 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Words in fact can mean multiple things. Words can indeed mean multiple things. Their meanings aren't infinitely flexible. You wrote that the word (or concept?) "by definition" means some specific thing or must meet some specific requirement. You defined it. You didn't imply that you were relying on some specific meaning that happens to be relevant to your point. To the contrary, you wrote that the definition you provided is THE meaning -- the ONE meaning -- of the word. That isn't the meaning of the word. It isn't any of the word's meanings. A breakthrough can "go against the grain." It isn't required to. So I didn't "turn it into something different." I read and responded to exactly what you wrote. Your broader point, too, is, I think, clearly wrong. It paints a needlessly, inaccurately adversarial, even defensive and persecutory, picture of what you're calling "paradigm shifts" -- work that may not fit into existing lines of inquiry or research. I strongly disagree with you. > If you understood what I meant then why turn it into something different unless you just want to argue? Did I want to argue? Not particularly. You made a point. You stated it strongly. Why wouldn't I offer a counterpoint if I disagree? Or why shouldn't I? Moreover, I offered a refinement of your point: I said that your claims make more sense and are less objectionable if we apply them to contemporary scientific research -- research requiring grants and external funding. That's not disagreement. It's also decidedly not the point your comment makes; your post isn't about academic, scientific, or mathematical research. Your point is much, much broader. There's no evidence in your comment that "[you] meant" to make the narrower point that I made. It is literally not the point you made. It's the point I made. I had to supply it for you. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pinoy420 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yea but this is HN where everyone is a disruptor and doesn’t play by the rules |
|
|
| ▲ | inetknght a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Often with reasons about fear of failure. If that were it, I would agree. But I don't agree. I think people who discourage going against the grain are more fearful of the loss of economic input. It's unproductive to do something you know will fail; it's very expensive to encourage that failure. |
|
| ▲ | biophysboy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Paradigm shifts require an accumulation of mundane experiments that present contradictions in a model. The renegade hacker isn't enough. |
|
| ▲ | MrMcCall a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Breakthroughs, BY DEFINITION, come from people going against the grain. They are what Gladwell calls, in "David and Goliath", being unreasonable in the face of so-called "prevailing wisdom". |
