Sviesta Ciba |

None of the Above (

artis) rakstīja,
@ 2013-07-26 10:12:00

"I guess this might be stunning to some people, but even as early as before 1980 there existed people who did great science, and in some cases even great philosophy, and, oh horror, they did not always knew the Bayes theorem, decision theory or too much neuroaesthetics and they were not even very rational in their private lifes. Instead, they became completely immersed in their narrow, precisely-defined field of inquiry and had the completely irrational drive that is necessary to persist the years of labour it often takes to repeatedly subject ones beliefs to the trials of experiment and revise them times and times again."

(Ierakstīt jaunu komentāru)

	mindbound 2013-07-27 07:38 (saite)
	Sometimes it works. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Diskusija)

artis
2013-07-29 16:20 (saite)

Most of the time, it seems.

"To properly do science you must be absolutely sure that, whatever you have in mind, you will do it, no matter what, and that you’re doing it right, to the point of almost self-delusion. This is so important that who wins in science is regularly not the most brilliant but the most determined (I’ve seen Nobel prizes speaking and half of the times they didn’t look much more brilliant than your average professor. Most of them were just lucky, and overall were incredibly, monolithically determined).

The ones I’ve seen thriving in [science], apart from geniuses (there are a few), are the guys who cling to a simple ecological tenet: Find your niche, where you are indispensable, and keep it in your claws at all costs. This means basically that these people do always the same thing, over and over again, simply because it’s the lowest-risk option."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6119429

(Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais) (Diskusija)

	mindbound 2013-07-29 16:43 (saite)
	"To properly do science you must be absolutely sure that, whatever you have in mind, you will do it, no matter what, and that you’re doing it right, to the point of almost self-delusion." That seems like an incredibly, diametrically wrong approach to me. Then again, I am a hard-boiled Bayesian. (Atbildēt uz šo) (Iepriekšējais)

Navigate: