undefined

points

[-]

I think the logic here is backwards.

Nobel Prize winners won the prize because they had unorthodox ways of thinking that led them to an actual discovery. I'd think that it's quite normal that 1 out of 10000 unorthodox beliefs ends up being a scientific reality of high impact.

i.e. ~1 out of 10000 unorthodox thinkers will win the Nobel Prize, 9999/10000 of those thinkers you will never hear about. For the one who won, it's likely they will have continued unorthodox ideas, 9999/10000 of which will not lead to a second Nobel Prize.

by i-blis1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The article lists an order some 10 of Nobel prize-winners later seen as "unsound" mostly in a field other than their main area of expertise. Making them 1 in 100. I won't be surprised that 1 in 100 senior scientist expresses unorthodox or even unsound ideas when foraging far away from their field, particularly on the kind of topics listed.

I agree that the share of unorthodox thinkers should all in all be higher among those winners. This is indeed what made them advanced in their field. But the main bias remains: looking at those whose voice reaches even when they venture out of their field rather than the full pull of (good) scientists.

by qurren1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Venturing outside your field is also part of what drives discovery itself, not a post-Nobel symptom, because you see the new field with a fresh set of eyes rather than textbook-brainwashed eyes.

A lot of discoveries are made by someone who "imported" insights from one field to another.

by i-blis52 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

> Venturing outside your field is also part of what drives discovery itself, not a post-Nobel symptom

This is precisely what I meant to say (and seemingly failed) and why I upvote you!

by BeetleB1 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Almost everyone harbors some scientifically unsound ideas. Especially when it comes to the human body and/or mental abilities.