Managing Science is not a numbers game
More people in science does not necessarily mean better results: there is an equilibrium to find, a sweet spot.
There is a fundamental difference between technology, industry and science. In an industrial setting, production is mostly defined by how many units of production you have, and how much ressources are available for production. As long as input ressources are available, you can in theory scale production somewhat geometrically. Double the number of factories, double the output.
Science works differently. Historically groundbreaking scientific discoveries and theories have been made in times of small tight knit communities. The most famous example being the iconic photograph from the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927, held in Brussels, often referred to as "the most intelligent photo of all time". All the great minds that defined modern physics from relativity to quantum mechanics fit in one single photograph.
In science, instruments are not the means of production, they are the tools used to assess theories. Doubling the money and the people does not imply doubling the output. Science is not about producing stuff it's about producing new ideas.
Science thrives when highly intelligent individuals, extremely passionate about a single topic, get to meet to exchange often and freely over a long period of time. A hyper focused kernel driven by a similar passion. Adding more people dilutes the potential of highly meaningful interactions. That's the first reason why more people can lead to less groundbreaking discoveries. Even if the constituents of that kernel exists, it can never crystallized and reach it's full potential. Too many people to talk to, too many papers to read and too many unaligned objectives.
This also promotes the apparition of dogmatism and "consensus thinking". When there are too many ideas to assess, it is tempting to go with what the majority thinks. However for science, freedom is more important than consensus. Consensus is a political tool used by human beings to govern themselves in matters of opinions. This is irrelevant to science because science is empirical. It doesn't matter how many people think something if it can be demonstrated to be false. Freedom of thought, on the other hand is the essential mechanism that keeps on generating new ideas and points of view. A necessary part of scientific development.
Partager:
Managing Science is not a numbers game
copier:
https://bluwr.com/p/428168110
Managing Science is not a numbers game
More people in science does not necessarily better results: there is an equilibrium to find, a sweet spot.
There is a fundamental difference between technology, industry and science. In an industrial setting, production is mostly defined by how many units of production you have, and how much ressources are available for production. As long as input ressources are available, you can in theory scale production somewhat geometrically. Double the number of factories, double the output.
Science works differently. Historically groundbreaking scientific discoveries and theories have been made in times of small tight knit communities. The most famous example being the iconic photograph from the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927, held in Brussels, often referred to as "the most intelligent photo of all time". All the great minds that defined modern physics from relativity to quantum mechanics fit in one single photograph.
In science, instruments are not the means of production, they are the tools used to assess theories. Doubling the money and the people does not imply doubling the output. Science is not about producing stuff it's about producing new ideas.
Science thrives when highly intelligent individuals, extremely passionate about a single topic, get to meet to exchange often and freely over a long period of time. A hyper focused kernel driven by a similar passion. Adding more people dilutes the potential of highly meaningful interactions. That's the first reason why more people can lead to less groundbreaking discoveries. Even if the constituents of that kernel exists, it can never crystallized and reach it's full potential. Too many people to talk to, too many papers to read and too many unaligned objectives.
This also promotes the apparition of dogmatism and "consensus thinking". When there are too many ideas to assess, it is tempting to go with what the majority thinks. However for science, freedom is more important than consensus. Consensus is a political tool used by human beings to govern themselves in matters of opinions. This is irrelevant to science because science is empirical. It doesn't matter how many people think something if it can be demonstrated to be false. Freedom of thought, on the other hand is the essential mechanism that keeps on generating new ideas and points of view. A necessary part of scientific development.
Partager:
Managing Science is not a numbers game
copier:
https://bluwr.com/p/428165774
Managing of Science is not a numbers game
More people in science does not necessarily better results: there is an equilibrium to find, a sweet spot.
There is a fundamental difference between technology, industry and science. In an industrial setting, production is mostly defined by how many units of production you have, and how much ressources are available for production. As long as input ressources are available, you can in theory scale production somewhat geometrically. Double the number of factories, double the output.
Science works differently. Historically groundbreaking scientific discoveries and theories have been made in times of small tight knit communities. The most famous example being the iconic photograph from the Fifth Solvay Conference in 1927, held in Brussels, often referred to as "the most intelligent photo of all time". All the great minds that defined modern physics from relativity to quantum mechanics fit in one single photograph.
In science, instruments are not the means of production, they are the tools used to assess theories. Doubling the money and the people does not imply doubling the output. Science is not about producing stuff it's about producing new ideas.
Science thrives when highly intelligent individuals, extremely passionate about a single topic, get to meet to exchange often and freely over a long period of time. A hyper focused kernel driven by a similar passion. Adding more people dilutes the potential of highly meaningful interactions. That's the first reason why more people can lead to less groundbreaking discoveries. Even if the constituents of that kernel exists, it can never crystallized and reach it's full potential. Too many people to talk to, too many papers to read and too many unaligned objectives.
This also promotes the apparition of dogmatism and "consensus thinking". When there are too many ideas to assess, it is tempting to go with what the majority thinks. However for science, freedom is more important than consensus. Consensus is a political tool used by human beings to govern themselves in matters of opinions. This is irrelevant to science because science is empirical. It doesn't matter how many people think something if it can be demonstrated to be false. Freedom of thought, on the other hand is the essential mechanism that keeps on generating new ideas and points of view. A necessary part of scientific development.
Partager:
Managing of Science is not a numbers game
copier:
https://bluwr.com/p/428165770
