|
On a similar note, Nassim Taleb says: "Something central, very central, is missing in historical accounts of scientific and technological discovery. The discourse and controversies focus on the role of luck as opposed to teleological programs (from telos, “aim”), that is, ones that rely on pre-set direction from formal science. The luck versus knowledge story is as follows. Ironically, we have vastly more evidence for results linked to luck than to those coming from the teleological, outside physics—even after discounting for the sensationalism. In some opaque and nonlinear fields, like medicine or engineering, the teleological exceptions are in the minority, such as a small number of designer drugs. This makes us live in the contradiction that we largely got here to where we are thanks to undirected chance, but we build research programs going forward based on direction and narratives. And, what is worse, we are fully conscious of the inconsistency." What's interesting, according to Taleb, is that science has been hiding this fact, that progress mainly comes from trial & error & risk-taking, as opposed to well-defined theories and narratives. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rawnshah/2012/11/02/for-innovat... |