"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.
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.
I can only compare physics and computer science, because these are the only domains I have a formal education in. But I'll tell you that in physics, philosophy is well discussed and at the core. The study is called "natural philosophy" after all. There's a reason there isn't a shortage of philosopher mathematicians and philosopher physicists. You can't do those subjects without philosophy, but you can do philosophy without those subjects and you definitely lose some rigor and to be blunt I feel that the academics I meet there appear to have just toked a large bowl. There is a reason the mathematicians broke away from philosophers fairly early on, because there was a goal of finding truth rather than endless debate, which is based on charisma and linguistic flexibility. The goalpost is too easy to move as people continue to act smug weaseling their way into the contradictory provable evidence to their claims actually being proof of their own (because they're not arguing for truth but rather for intellectual superiority). Because of this, I'd be careful with your diction if you want to actually communicate. I'm sure you know of Hacking, but that's a great place to start for anyone unaware. But the point of science is that which Asimov explained: The Relativity of Wrong. We must not ignore the fact that we get more right over time, and not pretend that all wrongs are equally wrong. That just prevents progress (and why many philosophers come off as annoying. They try to poke holes without understanding the fabric they are prodding, often pointing at the well known holes as if they were invisible). Not to say that physicists aren't pretentious, they are and I'm not sure you could get many to even pursue the subject if you didn't promise them a fictitious pedestal in intellectual superiority ;) (It's why you look for those who's eyes light up when they talk). On the other hand, I find computer scientists to be lacking in philosophy and especially in a discussion of ethics. They have a high focus on empirical evidence but despite discussing it do not seem to internalize the tyranny of metrics, but rather place it even higher on a pedestal. Maybe it is that they often are more jack of all trades, master of none, but think that they are because they did a project that took a week or two in a domain. But if I don't use spacing who's going to read my text anyways?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments
Unsubstantive: not substantial; having no foundation in fact; fanciful
Imagine if you (and others) had to compete on a platform where you can't BRUTALLY misuse words that have specific, broadly accepted meanings, a platform where instead of powerful people (that's you) using language tricks like the one you are using here against the powerless with no repercussions, the tables were turned (as in: this, and many similar behaviors, have been directly targeted in the design as fundamental Human/Reality problems to be solved, once and for all).
Impossible? Query Paul Graham on whether he thinks this is impossible. Paul is a clever man, and I know it.
I've heard it before Dang. Those rules are written (not necessarily with intent, you must also grapple with emergence) such that it is ALWAYS possible for a way to be found that the rules "have been violated", according to a subjective(!) judgment.
When we write software, or do anything, as Hackers we have to HANDLE subjectivity, and complexity. This is a HACKER website, hard problems are what people here (including your boss) PROCLAIM that we SHOULD handle.
I appreciate that moderating this website is not easy, in no small part because of people like me, but I CHALLENGE you, or Paul (I encourage you to cc him on this, I will take on all challengers) - anyone who "wins" based on an AMBIGUOUS (did you notice you didn't note WHICH (objectively subjective) rule I allegedly violated? I did!) appeal to "the rules" is imho violating the very spirit of NUMEROUS of paulg's excellent blog posts.
What's the deal Dang? Can you force your mind out of ~standard moderation mode? Can you consider the possibility that you are not an Omniscient Oracle, that perhaps someone that holds some different beliefs than you might maybe have a valid point, that maybe you have a MASSIVE problem on your plate that maybe cannot be executed with perfection? When you and I disagree, is it possible that perhaps your subjective disagreement on the subjective matter (which this is - do you disagree?) is not necessarily the most correct answer?
What's you and paulg's goal here? Money? Winning petty arguments? Something else?
I enjoy playing the Climate Change card. Is it not true that it is asserted to be a ~"big deal" here on HN? Well, how well are you Big Brains doing on that front? I've read LOTS of conversations on that topic here on HN, and I see little novelty, and LOTS of rehashed mainstream (non)thinking. Is this the legacy you and paulg want to leave? "Think outside the box"...but don't you dare violate the (local, man-made) Overton Window.
A challenge: set Paul Graham on me: Me vs Him. Off the record. I predict if the "The Rules" advantage is taken away, I will win every argument (because I have at least one trick up my sleeve), in Fact if not in appearance (I have more than one way to handle short term "losses" due to ~loaded dice).
Alternatively, you can always fall back to the winning by fiat approach: I make the rules, thus I win. But what if that Cultural Norm (it is a norm, do you even know this?) is what is causing the problem?
Essentially, I am laying a challenge not just at your feet, but also at Paul Graham's feet: come out from behind your rules, and argue like you are actually serious, not just (silicon valley, Western, 2023, etc) culturally "serious".
Also: feel free to ban me, but if that's your choice I recommend you also delete this thread, as there is a "fairly excellent" chance that I am going to use it as a ~"case in point" once I get "some things" off the ground. I propose that am not your average forum poster - I have a non-trivial architecture in mind that has been in the works for years to address the games played on social media in this era of humanity's evolution, and being a human, I hold grudges. I dare you and Paul, or anyone, to underestimate me.
Or: we could violate 2023 Human norms and cooperate (or, even consider it). But then, that's not easy, and violates the 2023, Capitalist Alpha Male Overton Window of behavior, so "not exactly practical", contrary to paulg's MANY musings.
It's a bit of a pickle, eh? But only if you think...and even then, only maybe.
It's my job to stay in "standard moderation mode", i.e. to try my best to apply the rules even-handedly. Of course it's not perfect, but I can tell you for sure that I didn't reply out of disagreeing with your beliefs, because I have no awareness of what your beliefs are. I don't scan the comments for that—only for whether people are breaking the site guidelines or not, such as by posting flamewar comments.
Not sure why you're bringing up pg - he hasn't had anything to do with running HN in almost 10 years.
I'm not sure I've understood the rest of what you're saying here. It sounds assertive and even menacing ("I hold grudges"), which is a little scary, but it's not clear to me what you're asking for. Are you wanting me to stop moderating based on HN's rules and start arguing with you about whatever beliefs we don't happen to share? That's neither my job nor my preference. People often want to get into arguments with moderators about the underlying issues, but moderation isn't about that, and I don't experience myself as disagreeing with you about underlying issues in any way—for all I know, we agree! I'm just not tracking the threads for that. It's too much to keep track of, and it's better if we don't.
"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
-------------------
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.