= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
satt comments on Productivity as a function of ability in theoretical fields - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
I'm not sure I would agree with the premise that Aristotle is less important than Einstein. Einstein greatly accelerated several fields of physics. Aristotle has long since been superceded in essentially every field, but his ideas still inform (indirectly) more modern work in logic, ethics, metaphysics, and so on. He was certainly productive, no doubt about that.
Also, there's no finite set of important solvable problems. Today, the available solvable problems may or may not be in physics, but there are plenty on other fields.
My physics-centric bias is showing! I was comparing Aristotle-as-physicist to Einstein, not comparing Aristotle-as-all-round-smart-guy to Einstein, and I should've consciously realized that's what I was doing.
I wonder how many of those big, solvable problems there are. It's not clear there are any (more) big unifying theories to be had in, say, macroeconomics or sociology. What would it mean to be a 21st century Einstein of one of those fields, I wonder?
I'd start by looking at these lists.