[derbOac]

I don't disagree with you at some level, but I also see a lot of hype in modern science and intellectual discourse. Maybe not for all fields, but for many.

A recent paper has been making the rounds suggesting that disruptive research is becoming less common. This seems critically important for interpreting Kuhn.

Perhaps, for instance, Kuhn was writing or formulating his ideas in an unusually disruptive era. Or maybe our current era is less disruptive, and so discourse about ideas has to be approached differently, maybe more skeptically.

[eof]

How do you know if you’re the one calling disruptive ideas “hype?”

Because statistically, you probably are. We all are.

[derbOac]

That's a good question and sometimes I wrestle with that. But hype cycles are real, and with some things I think there's just a lot of unanswered questions that get glossed over, or even worse, fundamental problems with underlying logic or something?

Studies have shown that people are pretty good at identifying when studies won't replicate, and I think that insight (foresight?) among some extends to identifying overhyped research. I think part of the issue with "disruptive" ideas in science is that I think there's enough people who don't recognize potential problems with it before it can catch on a lot before water is put on the fire, so to speak.

There's some analogies to things like Theranos or crypto probably. They get a lot of monetary investments, and a lot of enthusiasm, but then there's also lots of pushback. You could get into arguments about whether or not they are truly disruptive -- maybe they haven't been -- but I think defining that also is murkier in science also.

Maybe truly truly disruptive ideas are hard to dismiss as mere hype, but I think in the grey area between, a lot of things look relatively disruptive but are overhyped.

It probably varies a lot by field too.