Science needs an artist philosopher, someone with an ego of epic proportions who invades the world of science and affronts everything he sees.
It will be painful for the artist-philosopher to learn the proper approach to penetrate the scientific community, but all it takes is one great insight. Scientists and mathematicians can pour over formulas and equations and calculations all they want, but science will not be revolutionized, which is a key turning point in our history, until a great master of language and thought surrenders an insight that trumps everything that we've previously understood.
It will be painful for the artist-philosopher to learn the proper approach to penetrate the scientific community, but all it takes is one great insight. Scientists and mathematicians can pour over formulas and equations and calculations all they want, but science will not be revolutionized, which is a key turning point in our history, until a great master of language and thought surrenders an insight that trumps everything that we've previously understood.
-
Multiple fields have benefited us a lot. Digital electronics was the application of philosophy in engineering and happened because an engineering student took a philosophy course. It isn't an outside thinker that's required but one that's willing to cross the boundaries of discipline and see the associations. There used to be a TV show called "Connections" that showed how many apparently unconnected ideas and events in different times and places formed the foundation of our discoveries.
However, the oppositions to your post is that you have the attitude that your lack of knowledge makes you the superior judge of the theories you reference when in reality your posts demonstrates utter idiocy. Your approach is to exclude possible connections out of your own ego and you bring little to contribute to the concepts. A different perspective is valuable, an ego not so much.
Keep in mind that many scientists are also artists and philosophers.
However, the oppositions to your post is that you have the attitude that your lack of knowledge makes you the superior judge of the theories you reference when in reality your posts demonstrates utter idiocy. Your approach is to exclude possible connections out of your own ego and you bring little to contribute to the concepts. A different perspective is valuable, an ego not so much.
Keep in mind that many scientists are also artists and philosophers.
-
Your thinking seems to have been influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche. Or perhaps Ayn Rand. Or perhaps Adolf Schicklgruber. Anyway, anybody who doesn't know the difference between "confront" and "affront" probably doesn't have much interesting to say about progress in science.
-
Serendipity favors the prepared mind.
And most discoveries have been made by accident.
And most discoveries have been made by accident.
-
I'm not sure that you know what science is.