Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Loren's avatar

Just noting a couple editorial typos in the intro paragraph... "Each articleNormally"... "YouMany"... "we’ve createdwe’re doing"...

Expand full comment
Christian Burisch's avatar

Most of your subjects are super interesting. I'll tell you about a problem that I am wrestling with that I believe deserves your analysis.

Many prominent physicists, including Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft in a 2021 paper, have stated that fundamental physics needs new ideas.

Yet paradoxically, while the field calls for revolutionary thinking, the institutional structures actively resist it. I've experienced this first-hand trying to get feedback on my theoretical work in physics, but the problem goes far beyond my personal case.

As I see it, the system faces two interlinked challenges:

1. Individual level: Professional physicists cannot afford to engage with outside theories, regardless of merit, due to reputational risks and career incentives that reward incremental progress.

2. Institutional level: There's no mechanism to effectively evaluate potentially revolutionary ideas while filtering out genuine pseudoscience.

This creates a catch-22 where new ideas need credibility to get attention, but can't gain credibility without attention. Even 't Hooft, despite his Nobel Prize protection, carefully positions his unorthodox views to avoid being dismissed as "crackpot" thinking.

This seems like a perfect topic for your analysis: How do we design institutions that can both maintain scientific rigor and create safe spaces for evaluating revolutionary ideas? The current system appears optimised for incremental progress at the expense of potential paradigm shifts.

How many potentially valuable ideas are we missing because our institutions lack the mechanisms to properly evaluate them?

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts