Why modern academia has no place for grand theories?
because salami slice is the default
>>16919174It's easier to be a world-changing scientist 300 years ago where most people didn't have basic education compared to today where everyone has an entire library in their pocket and new concepts like germs or electrical power is universal knowledge in today's world.
>>16919329Cope. Modern soientists just love chasing over their hecking p-values and are not even interested in the deeper meaning of their work
>>16919174tf do you mean? it's the home of them.
>>16919338>He says while using a machine made of glass, plastic, and metal that can do almost anything the user desires.
>>16919329Imagine being this stupid and high on cope. KEK. More scientists with more education and laser and insane levels of tech should be making 10x the discoveries but instead they make 1% of the discoveries a handful of esoteric nerds did with a fucking pencil and primitive cave man tools. There are more PhDs working at CERN today than there were total scientists worldwide 300 years ago and those CERN niggers can't do shit. Scientist have never been so well educated, never before so well equipped, never before so supported by governments and limitless cash, there has never been this many human minds working towards discovery, not even close......yet they fail to discover anything of value. That's the paradox you retard. The number of scientists worldwide has experienced exponential growth over the past 300 years, moving from a few thousand "natural philosophers" in the early 18th century to millions of professionals today. It is estimated that90% of all scientists who have ever lived are alive today. Scientists Today (Early 2020s) Total Number: There are estimated to be over 8.8 million researchers worldwide
>>16919174 because grand theories have very high chance of out of scope rejection
>>16919174Why don't ESLs know how to type grammatically correct questioning sentences in English when it's basic bitch grammar, and why does nobody call them out on it here?
>>16919398stop being a nazi
>>16919398>Why don't ESLs know how to type grammatically correct questioning sentences in EnglishMaybe because they're ESLs, but here's what I want to know: why can't the albino niggers who consider English to be their native language ever seem to form more than a few broken sentences?
>>16919402>Maybe because they're ESLsThey've had years of exposure to learn correct English grammar. A sentence as simple as "Why doesn't modern academia have a place for grand theories" should not be a problem for them, especially since they're attempting to discuss specialised subjects in the English language to begin with.Up next comes the spiteful, transparent ESL cope:>why can't the albino niggers Such a nonsensical sentence. "Nigger" comes from Latin "negro" and Germanic "neger" meaning the colour black. "Albino" comes from Latin "alba" meaning White. You're trying to associate White skinned people with a negatively charged English insult explicitly and etymologically reserved for people with Black skin. True ESL semantic schizophrenia.>who consider English to be their native language ever seem to form more than a few broken sentences?Sources cited: a Brasilian krokodil laced crack pipe. Meanwhile the low quality of the average ESL threads on 4chan is clear for all to see.
The separation of science and philosophy was a terrible mistake.
>>16919394Probably because scientists before were just really curious dudes who learned some stuff but mostly just did their own studies. Modern science is standardized, there's a "correct" way to do everything which leads to predictable but boring outcomes. The system has become too systematic.
>>16919174Holy fuck I love this infograph, it perfectly summarizes the ENTJ applied scientist, i.e., me.Based. Get fucked nerds. Learn some inner alchemy. It makes the equations really pop when you awaken your intuition and you're not a fucking calculator doing what a fucking computer can do.
The Great Skitzo Man Theorem You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger darling
>>16919174It absolutely does, if by grand theories you DON'T mean:>ai slop that claims to solve all of physics that you made in one night with grok
>>16919174It does, they just need to be very very good. Your pic already explains it. If you have an individual who spends 30 years studying one single aspect of some biological or natural phenomenon, as a grand theorist you would need at least his level of knowledge and insight to incorporate that research into your own grand theory. You, as a single individual, could never garner the level of knowledge of all the subfields incorporated in your grand theory, that all the specialists have. So if your grand theory is based on some premise that you lack knowledge of, it's easy for a specialist in that field to come in and knock over your idea.I'd say if any researcher comes close to the "grand theory" type it's Henry Markram. Just look at the shit he's done, the incredible scope of his projects and STILL the high level of detail; involving brain mapping, mapping the entirety of a neuron, autism research, AI (not the garbage kind).
>>16919174Scientists of old were truth seekers for either glory of God or for shits and giggles aka as "bored" (usually the former)They had the money, either through their wealthy families or marriage. So essentially they were safe in regards to the bottom of the Maslows pyramid of needs.In comparison the todays academia doesn't have:>the money>belief in God (the ideal of objective truth)>the balls (testosterone to die for their truth)They will always be pushed and pulled by currents of academia or money of private industry.Nepotism, egoism and bribery is a given outcome.
>>16919174Gatekeeped freedom. Keeps those in power in power. Why was Newtonian Physics taught in school for 50 years after quantum mechanics was the "new". It was gatekept. Technological superiority, the USA learned that lesson in the 1920s, and again 1940-50s, even hired a bunch of evil scientists to help them along.
>>16919329That's not the problem, the problem is that we already know so much about science that there's nothing left for dilletantes to do. If you want to discover something, anything new at all, you have to spend thousands of hours of your life specializing in a tiny niche field. Otherwise you'll waste your time learning about too many different subjects, which is fine on its own, but you won't be discovering anything new, because we already know everything there is to know at the level where that's possible. There's just little to do now and a mountain of knowledge you have to thrudge through to even figure out a subject which hasn't been exhausted yet. It's kind of like asking "why aren't we exploring the earth anymore?" We did. It's over, someone else already finished exploring it. You're welcome to larp as a 21st century explorer, but you'll just repeat what everyone else already did before you.
>>16919394>He's never heard of diminishing returns and the plateau effectYou've ever thought why things like planes had a dramatic increase in tech in the first 50 years and kind of just remained static for decades afterwards? Cause there is a physical limit to how good something can get.
>>16919174No place for yours, buddy? Speak for yourself. There are existing grand theories you could look up that aren't super controversial. Loop quantum gravity or pilot wave theory are well founded theories you could endorse if you wanted and only idiots would shun you, but those theories are not exactly gospel either. I mean, if you really want to be bold you could keep your dick out for string theory I suppose. Most pure mathematicians I've met would support you and tend to go along with string theory.Personally, my money is on Roger Penrose's idea of conformal cyclic cosmology based on the recent 99.99% certainty from WMAP data that hawking points are real objects. Penrose is pretty fucking based, and one of the few living fossils that actually knew Einstein personally, and his work with Stephen Hawking won him a noble prize for jointly proving black holes exist (he proved that general relativity requires regions of geodesic incompleteness to exist, i.e., "singularities", and these were called "black holes" at the time, and then decades later they were observationally verified to exist, and now we take them for granted.)
