Interesting distinction. It does seem like we're in a cultural phase where Weak-link thinking has outsized influence. This was very thought provoking, thanks for writing.
This is a better model than the "every scientist we hire produces 3 beakers per year, which we can use to advance up the tech tree" model it criticizes. (Which is somewhat common among bureaucrats, and completely wrong.)
But it is still a fantastically flawed model. A scientific paradigm where there are a few "new discoveries" mixed among an ocean of shit is worse than useless. The model of "there is always more science to discover" turns into "every day, we learn more about how the COVID vaccine is harmful to your children's ovaries". If you dismiss incorrect psychological results as "the cost of progress", you will almost certainly dismiss the correct ones as well; your flood of bad science has completely erased any good.
Interesting distinction. It does seem like we're in a cultural phase where Weak-link thinking has outsized influence. This was very thought provoking, thanks for writing.
This is a better model than the "every scientist we hire produces 3 beakers per year, which we can use to advance up the tech tree" model it criticizes. (Which is somewhat common among bureaucrats, and completely wrong.)
But it is still a fantastically flawed model. A scientific paradigm where there are a few "new discoveries" mixed among an ocean of shit is worse than useless. The model of "there is always more science to discover" turns into "every day, we learn more about how the COVID vaccine is harmful to your children's ovaries". If you dismiss incorrect psychological results as "the cost of progress", you will almost certainly dismiss the correct ones as well; your flood of bad science has completely erased any good.
And also, we definitely are running out of ideas. If you want to fight me, I wrote up my salvo a few years ago. https://www.newslettr.com/p/the-long-twentieth-century