Iain McGilchrist | Why science has becomes less creative

Watch 'Imagining the universe' at iai.tv/video/i...

[@williamwalter4992]

"Committees are, by nature, timid. Based on the premise of safety in numbers, content to survive, rather than take risks and move independently ahead"... Dr. Ferdinand Porsche

[@khairulnaeim756]

The thing was maybe it about cost some R&D is really expensive to do...

[@AndrewMilesMurphy]

Very timid, I agree. And they lack human ideals, most of the time. The best thing that’s come out of a board of trustees is Walmart, and that’s almost entirely through happy coincidence that some people will pay double at the Kroger across the street. In the context of science, I think we are buying in to the religion of science, which is not science at all, and that’s why we are confining ourselves to studying dark matter with no regard for alternatives. Really there are so few. We don’t use the colliders for groundbreaking experiments, we’re afraid of what might happen. I want to know what the other spin neutrino is dang it. We could be making anti-fluorine to find out but we are stuck in literal dark ages of religious zealotry masquerading as science.

[@Transmutathan]

@@khairulnaeim756it’s only expensive by choice.

[@RufusToots420]

A camel is just a horse designed by committee.

[@amosonyoutube]

Sometimes isolation is the best form of creativity

[@Xalgucennia]

When I was doing my masters, I was bored and shocked at how much time was spent in group meetings formatting papers and fiddling with the margins so they confirm to the exact demands of the paper they were trying to publish.

[@2adamast]

Galileo who could have ground his own lenses, versus the Hubble telescope, both can see the moons of Jupiter

[@simperingham]

Surely that only needs one person?? Unless some of you were there to learn and make sure everyone understood the requirements.

[@Xalgucennia]

@@simperingham Well was there to observe, but, no essentially the entire team, maybe 5 to 8 people in a research group (depending on who was free) would set up regular meeting, and most of the 2 to 3 hour meeting would be going through any paper the group were attempting to publish, and format the paper, while some of the issues were technical, most of it was looking over the publisher guidance for the specific journal they wanted to publish in, and fiddling with the formatting to make it "easier to read". It's was actually understandable as getting it published was important, and no doubt Bourne of experience. I actually blame the journals for their pedantic standards more than the research group who just want to get their stuff through. The people who run the journals are just petty bureaucrats who don't actually understand any of the science they're gate keeping, so they enforce pointless formatting niceties so they can maintain the illusion of elitism by making it difficult to publish in their journal. An absolute rort.

[@sean640]

In law that's what paralegals are for

[@michaelwinter742]

The guiding documents for my masters thesis had one page of real directions and eight pages of formatting requirements.

[@PJR29787]

What a beautifully succinct way of saying we are going backwards due to conformity... no this is not an ironic statement. He fit alot of points into one small burst of honesty. We have to appreciate this view and take a look at how we are now holding science back. The most important subject in terms of moving humanity forward

[@DavidLukoson-om7rl]

I think the main issue of science is relaying truths, creativity comes into play when passion is involved.

[@RonaldAaronLopez]

PASSION WHO, WHERE?!?!?!

[@dk-zp5ze]

Maybe we've specialized so much in each field. We need experts from different fields to work on one problem.

[@lt6077]

So like more collaboration 😂

[@maynardtrendle820]

Within mathematics, Langland's is a good start.😊

[@basil9633]

I think rather what he means is that you shouldn't have a hierarchy of a commitment or univeristy or private company that is organizing the way you do science. Rather one or very small groups of scientists producing proofs,ideas, and experiments and letting the larger scientific audience peer review and check these ideas. Instead of letting ideas be formed before the science happens by previously mentioned organizations.

[@bmclaughlin01]

No it’s Politics.

[@TheIndependenceThinker]

Except typically they are all from one or very closely related fields.

[@sinephase]

could it be more that there was a perfect storm of methodology and technology that led to this explosion in understanding and now we're trying to understand things that are so complex that it takes this level of organization to even get there?

[@charleswalker2484]

Yea dude jump through any mental gymnastics you can to avoid the fact science has become a corrupt dogmatic institution

[@tonoornottono]

these ideas are obviously opposed to one another but they both have some merit to me.

[@MrReset94]

@@tonoornottonothey don’t need to be opposed, someone can use advanced te h and have big groups. As long as both work in a creative way rather than going at it like it’s office time, we would have creative breakthroughs.

[@TheHadi545]

I don’t believe it’s only the is, you wanna tell me our past scientific endeavours were not massive?

[@sinephase]

@@TheHadi545 try again in English

[@aodhfinn]

A Brilliant man . Honest and brave , free thinking and insightful who brings new thinking .📯

[@VolvoCommand]

As a counterpoint, the problems of science are now too large to be solved by a single creative mind. So a new important skill as a scientist is to foster collaboration and have excellent people skills. This is not what tortured geniuses in ivory towers like to hear.

[@Notallowed101]

"foster collaboration and have excellent people skills" Finding this line everywhere myself, in most jobs regular people work you'll find that same ethic. I believe the translation from corpo speak to regular language is: "It's not WHAT you know but WHO you know" However, you would think that with all the talk of "diversity" and "inclusion" today that we would be focusing our efforts at including people who find it harder to connect with social skills, and to find way of embracing the, as you say it, tortured geniuses.

[@kammonkam4905]

Science is almost never the result of a single creative mind. Einstein's general relativity was probably the only closest example (but still was not true). Newton said he saw further because he stood on the shoulders of giants. McGrilchrist is a charlatan serving up word salad. He should stick to self help books. Not sure why he is even on the same stage as Penrose.

[@ronanmacgabhann347]

Ye, his take is retarded when you realise that that was all of the lowest hanging fruit in terms of discovery. Of course a single person could do that.

[@drproton85]

I disagree. The problems of science now is conformity. Just look at the electric universe theory. It puts the big bang theory to shame, yet it's disregarded as true science because it doesn't go along with mainstream cosmology.

[@laurabrossard1661]

could be true if we didn t lost 50 years in string theory while a russian man living in his mom basement got point carré conjecture solve alone, middled finger everyone and left. How many month of lhc have we lost trying to find those low energy supersimetry, counting particules to see if some gone missing. I think we are witnessing the death rattle of thousand of life lost into the mathematic artefact of string theory

[@jcolinmizia9161]

I think he forgets that in the early 1900s the problems being faced in physics were problems that could be addressed at benchtop scales. Problems like the ultraviolet catastrophe or wave-particle duality could be studied at low energies. There are no more major problems at that scale. The unsolved problems are problems of high energy physics. That alone necessitates major collaborations.

[@johnlangendoen967]

cool ,thanks ,....🤔

[@puckmin3487]

I don't think that's true per se, sure the actual experimenting is less "tabletop" but the theory is all the same, nowadays you're either a theoretical physicist or an experimental one, so there's no room for coming up with a theory and then experimenting to (dis)prove that theory sadly

[@bobolinkr]

Electric Universe

[@radroatch]

It's a question of how many benchtop-scale problems have been solved vs how little people can creatively solve problems from benchtops when they are kept away from the endeavour by the ever-scaling pursuit of building on the creativity of previous generations.

[@superneenjaa718]

@@puckmin3487 nobody will stop you if you have the required expertise. On that note, it’s probably easier for experimentalists to do theoretical work than for theorists to do cutting edge experiments.

[@rossawilson01]

It was also an era where many contributors were not included because of status and class and in many cases just plain ego. We acknowledge more people now, and that is because it’s has rarely ever just been one person - but also because of the increasing complexity owing to complex equipment and further involved specialities. It has nothing to do with not being able to ‘think freely’.

[@DanielHeeris]

This

[@chiphill4856]

AGREE 100%

[@hosseinturner3792]

Many contributors? You exaggerate I think.

[@joelvann1815]

McGilchrist is a true genius and polymath of our time

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Not a polymath. Smart, sure, but not as genius as made out to be.

[@Tobacc0]

Scientific methodology has morphed over time to become the same rigid, hierarchical and dogma-ridden practice of the papacy of old that scientists so like to claim to despise. Original and creative thinking is spurned in favour of lock-step progression down blind alleys always led by established and tenured self-interests. Feeble concepts like gravitons, dark energy and dark matter are the result.

[@iankclark]

Thank you! You appear to be one of the few sane commenters here.

[@chiphill4856]

There has always been hierarchy and conformity in science. Much of which historically came from the church. It takes a uniquely insightful and creative mind to produce novel, groundbreaking work. Same as it ever was.

[@polycrystallinecandy]

"feeble" concepts like dark matter and dark energy? You have a better explanation for gravitational observations at the scale of galaxies?

[@iankclark]

@@chiphill4856 same but different. It’s a lot more about money and jobs now, “filling in the gaps”.

[@iankclark]

@@polycrystallinecandy No but that’s the point isn’t it? Why aren’t there better explanations. We’re not told “these are placeholder theories and we have no idea what this stuff is”. We are told “science has figured it out”.

[@cosmotect]

This is simply because the things that were relatively easy have been brought to the surface. You can't expect to be making ground breaking, reality shattering discoveries all the time. We have entered the age of science in the 19th century and shed light on a lot of the fundamentals. I'd even say on most of it. What remains are of course the hardest questions.

[@Lily-lw8mq]

Being someone in a big group like that, I see that this is completely true, they’re run by commonly accepted (and typically outdated) truths that are irrefutable

[@prettytrue-zj3tj]

Academic freedom is the most pertinent issue facing the university, thank you for platforming this discussion! 👍

[@michealwestfall8544]

The harder the idea, the more people you need. Particle accelerators aren't made by 1 person.

[@AstonOnYT]

Our new masters don't want to finance anything exploratory, that'd rather look for scientists who build things which are derivatives of former works.

[@dennisjump8655]

this is one of the reasons why people should question the orthodoxy and never, ever simply "trust the science".

[@lekebabfrancais9018]

What?

[@dennisjump8655]

@@lekebabfrancais9018 Kinda speaks for itself. Did you hear what the man said?

[@typhooni3149]

Never trust science, but do science.

[@randomone4832]

It’s a balance of both. Of course, theorists will be mostly in small numbers, collaborating in pairs or small groups. But on the experimental side, as the questions have become deeper and experiments more ambitious, it’s necessitated larger and larger projects with massive equipment, which requires collaboration on an immense scale. Take large colliders, for example-high energy physics is an area that requires many, many names.

[@MOSP14]

The questions have gotten more harder and to find those proofs has become exponentially more difficult, thus, more people how to come together to make the slightest advancement on x fiel of science. What we need is way more funding and incentivize science even more, but we’re getting comfy. While science is the only thing that can guarantee men a future.

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

It’s not just the Sciences.

[@d3rtybasst3d7]

The peer review system is gatekeeping pure and simple. If your ideas don't conform to the established "standard model" then you don't receive recognition and you certainly don't receive any funding 🙄

[@goldesd]

Schwarzschild wrote his theory in a tent on the battlefield. There are no many man like that

[@soebredden]

The answer to this is that nobody thinks out of the box . The hard questions mentioned below were as “hard”to past scientist- they simply just did not thought they new and questioned the right things. Things today like : How did this evolve has this redicoulous answer which everybody agree to: From a big explosion based on that nothing can travel faster than light. We stopped by questioning MATTER something we can measure with matter . How can something material be moved by something immeterial? That is like what Newton asked - when he asked himself: how can some invisible thing move something visible? Oh boy we have still so far to go and everyone thinks we are there alredy - thats why we dont get anywhere. Richard Feynman aknowledge it when he said from a question about consciousness : “I only talk about what we can meassure”

[@kennethshort2016]

But I totally agree with the scientific method. There may be too many people stirring the pot but consent is really important. Science has become so much larger than it was in 1911

[@claragabbert-fh1uu]

Oft the Billitary BeDustrial complex is built by "science" upon a comfortable accumulation of misinterpretations and misbeliefs. Why? The conversation rewards and entertains, and invites refreshments.

[@schloops8473]

Simple, we went from a time where one could buy a couple thermometers and a pound of glass and discover something incredible. Now, you need 20 miles of tubes under a mountain and that will force conformity. It will all change when someone will open a door and offer humanity a new playground where anybody (within reason) can discover something important.

[@jackieking1522]

My take is that every one of those 1000 would love to be the person who found the anomaly that opens up the next physics. And its going to take the data from the giant machines. If Mr Gilchrist thinks there are unexplored, cheaper avenues then go for it.....there are any number of willing acolytes out there.

[@conradoroveri4037]

Great video

[@akhilpillai7847]

Very true Sir 🤘🏻

[@helenbostock2350]

I agree with you

[@michaelwright2420]

He forgot they were still discovering first order; now we are dealing with xx interactive networks -

[@yurikovalev7839]

so true

[@Michael-we3oz]

I know thats right lol, and when a out of the box creative genius shows up they crush him with their egos lol

[@joaquimteixeira8297]

It's called the fiat of orthodoxy

[@mixingaband]

the music is too loud and distracting

[@skaramicke]

We can only assume that the rest of the participants were in absolute agreement or you would surely have included their rebuttals… right?

[@WORDTRIP1]

I agree

[@nurainiarsad7395]

well, in those days wealthy eccentric people also dabbled in science using their personal wealth to procure the necessary experimental equipment. he’s very welcome to encourage the wealthy of today to pay for their own now-exponentially more expensive experimental equipment and carry out their own breakthrough science instead of, idk, buying yachts and crypto.

[@anupamchakrabarti4657]

Absolutely! We have to have a tunnel vision nowadays, otherwise you have no chance of acceptance of your paper.

[@yw1971]

Agree

[@aranyakghosh8405]

Name of this show?

[@hamzaa.8082]

Now researchers produce research papers just to get promoted because the system requires that. I’ve known many colleagues in academia who are just machine-producing papers but almost all of it is rubbish. It is quantity over quality.

[@gingerballsjosh1]

A great example is consciousness research - if large format, profit chasing big corps are funding scientists, then frankly (which is what I believe is needed to tackle the ‘hard’ problem) a metaphysical, new age, possibly spiritual new type of science isn’t going to come from the constraints of consumer capitalism. Why? Because it doesn’t suit the worldview.

[@dollarbar1]

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

[@GeilerDaddy]

so what?

[@typhooni3149]

​@@GeilerDaddyso don't put to much trust and prestige with people with a high degree, because chances are they only have knowledge, but very little imagination.

[@GeilerDaddy]

@@typhooni3149 That doesn't make any sense at all. Could it be that you're stupid or something?

[@SaveManWoman]

Not true you can imagine but if you have no action discipline it’s worthless. Imagination is another word for illusory.

[@robertvann7349]

M=E/c², God's creation equation not getting something from nothing but getting something physical from something not physical ie God's spirit energy.

[@bernieflanders8822]

Love how Penrose laughs at the beginning and the timing 😂

[@zleopatra]

He laughed because he knows its BS that "art is the work of one mind" - such an ignorant statement.

[@soebredden]

- but you have no idea of why he laugh - do you ?

[@f.vazquez9259]

​@@zleopatra In the Arts, filtering until an act "makes it big" is the work of many minds evaluating its conformity to the trend - and the underlying doctrine too. But depending on what discipline they artistic content can still be the result of the work or at least the ideas and guidance of one or a few...of course always based on previous artists and with usually a great deal of "production" work afterwards.

[@jadwigabudzynska6522]

His laugh expreses HIS emotion at the moment. It means nothing (more).

[@MrBear-lc5pz]

yup...Elon musk deserves a Nobel prize... but probably his corporation will get it..or a team of engineers...

[@procerusgigas]

This is not the reason there are papers with plenty of authors, has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that there are no clearly defined contributions that you should have to quallify as an author. And therefore, you can sign almost anyone on the paper, and if you sign you colleagues on your paper, they will do the same for you. Guess what, number of citations and number of paper are primary metric used to measure quality of someones scientific work and give grant money. Therefore, those that do not engage in this behaviur are disadvantaged compared to those that do, regrdelss of the quality of their work.

[@typhooni3149]

So the whole field is toxic, gotcha.

[@PicaMonedula]

This seems wholly consistent with what he was saying 🧐 Not that i know hes right or anything

[@ohwhatworld5851]

Wouldn't that eventually damage people's reputations though? Adding their names to low quality or even fraudulent papers?

[@0ptixs]

You're right, but you're missing his point. I think his point is about how the insistence on having well cited, scientific style papers in the modern day is stifling peoples creativity. And that many a great discoveries were made by a single individual, and not thousands of people contributing to discoveries

[@procerusgigas]

@@0ptixs I dont really think that was the point tbh.

[@tamtrinh174]

they had a breakthrough in the "science" of how to get money

[@themonrovian8441]

And ego.

[@khairulnaeim756]

😂

[@mtman2]

Exactly and is how $$$ controls outcomes like now with GW

[@user-fj8xc4vc6g]

Artists are also aware of a lack of individual creative epiphany among their own. A lot of art, always churning out, yet nothing truly unique, that was also keenly aware of where the art has been and where it might go. The director of the NY Modern Art Museum said "If the new art made me uncomfortable I knew I was going the right direction." The painter Murakami would give a group of students a kind of class with a hard deadline the students had to meet, all in the hope of creating the right balance of creative freedom and the visceral demands of daily life to foment the possibility of a spark becoming a blaze -- a new genius born. Most washed out, I think. Robert Anton Wilson said it took about 60 years between real acceptance of the implications of the latest state of the art (ie. Einstein's Relativity) and using that knowledge to create theory for the direction of future technology. Think Moore's Law, but for human scientific progress. I dunno... If history is any tell a nobody is sitting in the middle of nowhere working on something that will change the world. Hey, it happens still today!

[@rick4electric]

Duh! Why are you guys always 50 years behind the times? Oh that's right. You need control. Ego will never trump real science. You must submerge the ego to do real science. What we have now is more akin to a religion than science.

[@1Mrdreadful]

Tale as old as time. We can never seem to get out of our own way.

[@DelightfulPager-ro4nw]

Damnit he didn't give me time to guess the Rutherford paper only had one name...I was going to guess Rutherford! 😤

[@Amarok-p6l]

Everything has become less creative. Music, Art, literature, and science.

[@DrVickyHarris]

Stupid inability to tell experimental collaboration from theoreticians. If you don’t know theoretical physics from experimental, you are deeply inexperienced.

[@paulroberts7429]

Disagree with Iain McGilchrist, science with wider reward's are less, what's the benchmark for our scientific achievements, a space-station, curing cancer, Atomic bombs, less wars, hadron colliders.

[@arentol7]

It's not a regression. It's that science builds upon prior science, and in the early 20th century, we were at a tipping point of knowledge that was inevitably leading to massive leaps in science. We may never have such a tipping point again, and it may just be slow steady progression from here, which is fine.

[@iankclark]

Poppycock. You’re just coming up with a convenient and unoriginal narrative. One that’s generally held by all the drone scientists feeding off the corpse of the Enlightenment.

[@WilcoWalstrøm]

All lies!

[@chiphill4856]

It's true that as we progress , there is less to learn and it's sometimes es harder to understand that last small hidden percentage.

[@norawheeler2555]

​@@chiphill4856the idea that we've reached some sort of Tipping Point and we know more than we don't know is absolutely ludicrous. The ideas, knowledge and understanding that we have no comprehension of is absolutely unfathomable and we've only made a scratch in the surface.

[@chiphill4856]

@@norawheeler2555 Not exactly. If you look around yourself right now, whether you are inside or outside, physics and science under everything you see. Everything is the room or building or forest or field or wherever you are, we understand every macroscopic and microscopic object around us and how it behaves. There are, however, still a few small pockets of mystery.

[@igorjee]

Or because we discovered 90% of what has been out ther to discover.

[@RandallvanOosten-ln5wf]

Agreed, innovative breakthroughs have reduced precipitously.

[@JohnS-zv7hf]

❤ Brilliant observation.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

Not really. Science today is so immense today because it needs to be. All the easy questions are answered. It's not because of oooooh hierarchy. You can still make your big brained creative ideas known via theoretical papers.

[@JohnS-zv7hf]

This guy is brilliant. I was unaware of him until I saw this clip. I have since picked up and read (listened to) his book: The Master and his Emmissary.

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

@@JohnS-zv7hf based on this 1 video, no he isnt.

[@davidusa47]

@@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC you’re proving his point 😂

[@kakistocracyusa]

@@JohnS-zv7hf He's a twit discussing stuff of which he is ignorant.

[@lindafarwell3408]

A new society of thinkers from all disciplines must be established

[@hextoken]

Also the judeo-christian has been abandoned

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

Good. Very good. Fairy tales, championed by the paranoid.

[@kedrednael]

Because science works very well we have answered the questions which are easily answereable. Now we're left with harder and harder questions. Isaac Newton didn't have to build a gravitational wave detector to further the knowledge. Now we do have to do such things.

[@subhuman3408]

Issac had falling apple that is enough

[@PseudoProphet]

​@@subhuman3408he had nothing, probably copied to from someone and did modification. That's how since worked back in the days 😂😂

[@ThanosSofroniou]

You missed the entire point

[@kedrednael]

@@ThanosSofroniou No he missed the entire point. Scientists are not using more expensive equipment and working in groups because of "prestige & big money... conformism to 'hierarchy of science'". They are not "not thinking freely" anymore. Science has always progressed and checked by making observations of reality, to differentiate between different explanations. Now the observations we have to make to differentiate between explanations are way more complicated to make then in the past. Because obviously easy observations have been made already and the more wrong explanations we had in the past have already been rejected. It's just harder to progress/change now.

[@aarondavis8943]

Yep. The more we learn, the more specialised we have to be to keep making discoveries. The broader perspectives occur early and then we expound on those with ever more precise focus. No corporation is stopping another Einstein from developing an equivalent to Special or General Relativity. He only required the time to think. And anyone today can publish a paper and argue their case.

[@jusescrust4285]

Seems reductive

[@GhostOfDalek]

Maybe! but that could be because science has become so complex that no one can do it alone

[@CS.AtheistChannel.VoteBidenAOC]

Yup. The low hanging fruit has been picked. Now we need people to hold the ladders.

[@maunlio]

Ok, let's talk about BIG money, corruption and prestige now...

[@samwillard5688]

Back in those days, us DIY'ers were people like Franklin, Hooke, Newton, Leibniz, Einstein. Now, you cannot just go get some uranium to experiment with. The average person that is not involved with a university is not taken seriously. This is a huge mistake.

[@typhooni3149]

Spot on.

[@Gunth0r]

A potato speaks on the state of science.

[@soebredden]

What an arrogant comment - Typical for someone thinking in a box; “ Only my science know about whats its about”

[@phpn99]

We've entertained the illusion that Science could be farmed through PROCESS. It has only led to progress in... process. Scientific discovery is a spark that can't be farmed. It has to be charmed.

[@clairen4584]

Collaborative? Meet the era of (and errors made *by* ) groupthink -- 'Resistance is Futile' 🤯 (The Borg😵‍💫) ♒️♌️

[@WisomofHal]

I agree. I feel as though, working alone or exploring alone is looked down upon, but I also think it comes from business. It almost seems as if research funds are only rewarded when a big business needs smart people to dig deeper into a subject and only if that subject has the ear of many people in a domain. Otherwise, the types of discoveries we need to make now are expensive and most requires some sort of funding. You can be an absolute genius interested in quantum computing, but you can’t make any breakthrough unless you have funding behind your exploration.

[@WestOfEarth]

Also, the way we admit or advance students to the graduate level is highly filtered. One has to perform a certain way on a specific set of tests, otherwise they are left out. For example, I had a professor once who told the class he was taught to derive everything from foundational principles and not to memorize. But when he took standardized tests, it was expected that those tested had memorized formulas and such so as to have more time to finish. So that test filtered out those who really understood the fundamentals in favor of those who had great memories.

[@roel60]

He is right. Let's not forget the power of ONE in science - An individual genius like Newton, Einstein, Lemaitre, Faraday, Tesla, etc. One who can think independently and come up with breakthrough ideas with practical industrial applications for the greatest benefit of humankind. We need more like these lone idividual geniuses especially since the 17th century up to now, the problem of TRUE NATURE OF GRAVITY has not been solved. But one man, an individual lone researcher, has solved this gravity conundrum in 30 years. Check his published papers at two science journals ACADEMIA and REAL TRUE NATURE or google the name of the author ROEL REAL ROVIRA. Thank you.

[@SMMore-bf4yi]

Yes so obvious to all, $$ the driver … phd’s with no purpose … creativity at nonsense peak …debates.. IE: “there’s no free will “ Yet used free will to reach that conclusion for a yes/no purpose… other than … Likes, followers & $$$ What’s happened to science ??

[@danielfrancis3660]

Scientific breakthroughs aren’t linear with time. They maybe linear with the number of people working on stuff and not forgetting serendipitous breakthroughs.

[@kasramaasumi8743]

Absolutely incorrect argument. Science has grown faster because of collaboration.

[@WilliamDye-willdye]

It reminds me of how filmmaking works. There's often a single author who writes a script or directs, but in order to produce a film you need a large team of people and a lot of money.

[@denisdaly1708]

He is dead wrong. It is that all of the low hanging fruit has bern picked. Progress now is very hard, requiring many different specialists. He should look up the Dunning Kruger effect

[@michaelz6555]

I’m rather sure Roger Penrose made mincemeat out of McGilchrists’s observations. Pity the short didn’t play his rebuttal.

[@TheReasonableSkeptic-ii4te]

I heard Penrose give a short speech at the opening the Oxford University Press warehouse in Cary, North Carolina, USA.

[@AkshaySinghJamwal]

Terence Howard is probably come knocking on this guy's door.

[@nikojohnson9894]

This seems like a physics problem and not so much a biology/chemistry problem. Yeah, if you want to innovate fusion technology, you’re not going to do it with a few collaborators

[@Ohmriginal722]

Different fields should talk more, has any political scientist done much talking with physicists? Somehow I doubt it

[@hugodesrosiers-plaisance3156]

We may well at be at a point in History when, for better or worse, sheer creativity and maybe even mysticism will gradually take over again. And I honestly can't find anything fundamentally wrong with that - it's all Human in the end.

[@propylaeen]

Do you know what the biggest problem of mankind really is, you lack composure, you fidget and fidget, and strive and flow around, but that is exactly what robs the poor drip in the quicksand first of the light, and then of the air.😮

[@marcomclaurin6713]

Watch 'Seraphim family ' Maybe we can bring scientists up to speed

[@3pints]

He doesn't explain why at all he just points out, better than nothing I guess, but it's a very simple reason as to why we have this conformism, hard times create strong(or smart) men(not just men), strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weaker(conforming) men is what we have now in this field, The indoctrination occurs in fields that have yet to be solved (QFT) to speed up education but this creates reliance on being fed the information instead of finding it out yourself...

[@ColinLyons-dr4oq]

No it’s not. It’s because we have peaked, science is dead, comedy is dead, cinematography is dead, rock is dead, dance music is dead, hip-hop is dead, music itself is dead, the art of writing is dead. We have become more superficial, shallow, chaotic, divided and violent. We have peaked plain and simple. We are on a downward trajectory. It could be a lull but it’s more likely the canary in the mine for civilisation because let’s face it, we don’t deserve this beautiful earth.

[@picotconaboy]

You see Penrose stifling a laugh. This is nonsense. The ATLAS experiment has over 2 thousand authors because it’s about 7000 tonnes of precision experimental physics, not because of academic suppression

[@delfacto121]

Surprising and worrying because rapidly and progressively growing amount of new grounbreaking data is estonisching and should induce exactly opposite processes and insights.

[@WaynesBonsai]

Tell me about it.... I'm fairly certain I have figured out the final theory without any degree or formal training. But through hears of obsessive self study. And because of this calaborative outsourcing requirement and theft-like mindset, I shall keep it as my pet. And take it to my grave.

[@narendrap9431]

Collaborative working and communication are getting more rewards in modern days. That's why the rate off innovation is slowed down, I hope with AGI it again increases in future. Everything needs refferences to reach the top, so the opportunity for middle men to get diamond rich.

[@billcook7483]

The guy is talking rubbish. Collaboration is important today because the complexity of scientific research is too much for individuals to cope with. For example , we're not talking about atoms anymore , we're researching the structures of sub atomic particles , tiny compared to atoms.

[@damianabbate4423]

I think this is true for nearly every human endeavor. At the beginning of anything people are able to do what they like until things become better understood and then become heavily constrained, costly and regulated. People's skills become more and more specialised which also narrows the freedom as we rely so much more on other specialists. Efficiency is one of the biggest constraints as well as everything from equipment and labour is just so costly. It's not just a single guy in the backroom of a university doing an experiment. It's just inevitable. It can be demonstrated from the sciences to the building trades.

[@johnlawrence2757]

Everything that needs to be known is now known. “Scientists” can therefore become profitable puppets of the advertising and promotions industries.

[@profearoum]

Absolutely true, ten fingers is controlled by one mind, not the other way around.

[@StoptheHateJustDebate]

This is rubbish. I work in science and most papers are done by a handful of researchers and students. There are hundreds of papers with just one researcher. This is nonsense. There are large research projects, but they are multi-faceted and hence have many people. By far, and I mean by far, the research papers are small groups of Individuals. Just review science journals. Don’t listen to people with a fear agenda.

[@baarbacoa]

He's comparing different sorts of research. Complex projects like the black hole telescope that require many scientists skilled in different disciplines. That's fundamentally different from a single theoretician constructing a new theory from available evidence. Plus, I don't think they shared the glory back in those good old days like they do today.

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Obviously when we determine unification here it pushes approximating complexity there. 70 years after Newton Belgium adopted Babylonian cosmogony took evolutionary form & shape to It's extremes and found dark spirits and woke matter. 70 years ago the American orientation and direction flipped for the greater good and its a place of measure where European working complexity but was inspired differently by Newton and leaves us a pure measure. And now its mapping dark matter spirits, multi verses, branching parallel reality just to preserve man made time correlated with photons and space. It doesn't mean it's not valuable but obviously orientation and direction plus taking physicalism to extreme mystifys minds and loses sight of its slice of the pie or where it plays a unique role. The master of this domain has been subjugated