<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:18pt"><div><span>Stefano <span id="misspell-0"><span id="misspell-0"><span id="misspell-0" class="mark">Vaj</span></span></span> wrote:<br></span></div><div><span>"Let us say that I am in principle wary of orthodoxies, of </span></div><div><span><span id="misspell-1"><span id="misspell-1"><span id="misspell-1" class="mark">byzantinisms</span></span></span> and of putting all <span id="misspell-2"><span id="misspell-2"><span id="misspell-2" class="mark">one's</span></span></span> eggs in one basket, </span></div><div><span>and more confident in breakthroughs generated by grand </span></div><div><span>visions and revolutionary approaches."</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Minor <span id="misspell-3">piecemeal</span> innovation is the province of orthodoxies,</span></div><div><span>significant breakthroughs occur when
individuals or small</span></div><div><span>groups generate "grand <span>visions and revolutionary approaches."</span></span></div><div><span><span>This history of this is clear but <span id="misspell-4"><span id="misspell-3">ortho</span>doxies</span> have the tools</span></span></div><div><span><span>to gather funding far out of proportion to their value.</span></span></div><div><span><span></span></span> </div><div><span><span>Dennis May</span></span></div><div><br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 18pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><div style="margin: 5px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); height: 0px; line-height: 0; font-size: 0px;" class="hr" contentEditable="false" readonly="true"></div><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Stefano Vaj
<stefano.vaj@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Saturday, August 20, 2011 7:13 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [ExI] Discontent with the path physics is taking<br></font><br><div id="yiv1549836021"><div class="yiv1549836021gmail_quote">2011/8/20 Sophia Rose <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sen.otaku@googlemail.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" ymailto="mailto:sen.otaku@googlemail.com">sen.otaku@googlemail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;" class="yiv1549836021gmail_quote">
<div>Even if science is a cultural product, there are lots of subcultures within all countries that have scientific research. What effect do you feel these subcultures have on the pursuit of science in general, or Physics in specific?</div>
<div><br></div>I know that it is a general trend in dominant culture to grab the limelight for one's self (I think that is easily drawn from the Reality Star trend). So we are saying that this is the motivation behind this race for String Theory? The desire to be the next Einstein/Newton/Maxwell?</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I do not claim to have a final word to say on the subject, but I suspect that the contemporary international physics community has cultural traits of its own, which in turn reflect to some extent those of the societies which are (still?) predominantly represented in its ranks. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Now, it appears at least very debatable that such societies are currently going through any kind of cultural Renaissance... :-)</div><div><br></div><div><div>Moreover, globalisation itself may lead to a loss of wealth and diversity - just think of uniformisation of very different educational traditions - that would not bode well even for the development of hard sciences. One need not resort to postmodern or critical theory here, see what, eg, Oswald Spengler or Stephen Wolfram have to say on how much mathematics itself appears to reflect a civilisation's interests and biases or Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics on the sociological reasons for string theory's current dominance in the academia.</div>
</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;" class="yiv1549836021gmail_quote"><div>And if so, how is that different from past trends? What was the previous motivation for scientific discoveries? Is it possible, or even desirable to return to that?</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Let us say that I am in principle wary of orthodoxies, of byzantinisms and of putting all one's eggs in one basket, and more confident in breakthroughs generated by grand visions and revolutionary approaches.</div>
<div><br></div><div>How do we produce all that? I do not have any magic recipe, but historical experience suggests that such things usually take place in places and ages less conservative than our existing context...</div>
</div>-- <br>Stefano Vaj<br>
</div><br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br><br><br><var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></div></div></div></body></html>