The Scientific Method is the Radio Edit of Great Science: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
== On YouTube == | |||
{{#widget:YouTube|id=8LPwyy4scAc|start=4597}} | {{#widget:YouTube|id=8LPwyy4scAc|start=4597}} | ||
== On X == | |||
{{#widget:Tweet|id=317162662263914496}} | |||
{{#widget:Tweet|id=1355932433217069059}} | |||
[[Category:Portal Riffs]] | [[Category:Portal Riffs]] | ||
[[Category:Portal Topics]] | [[Category:Portal Topics]] | ||
Revision as of 22:00, 16 October 2024
I often make this joke that the scientific method is the radio edit of great science. Great science doesn't look much like the story you've been told about people diligently trying to falsify things and, you know, all sorts of statistical significance.
Great science looks like breaking into graveyards and digging up bodies when you know you shouldn’t, or trusting your aesthetic sense when the data tells you otherwise.
I've always loved this aspect of Science, that you may want to tame this thing, and it won't be tamed. It will always be the case that the leaders of the field are the misfits in the back throwing spitballs, rather than the good kids who are always there on time raising their hands.
-Eric Weinstein on The Tim Ferriss Show
On YouTube
On X