On Tue, 21 May 2013 00:32:09 +0400 Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 20-May-2013 23:41, Adam Wilson пишет: > > > > Absolutely, but my point is that some of those are entire fields of > > study and bodies of knowledge that can take years or decades a too > > acquire. > > I believe this is a fallacy as given the current pace of progress > people can then no longer hope to become experts anymore ;) > (Or at least in anything even remotely actual). A year or 2 is more > then enough to get to the state of the art, and amount of experience > is not proportional to inventing something new (and advancing the > field). > With only a brief, cursory understanding of the current state-of-the-art, any attempts to "advance the field" automatically carry a high risk of *regression* under the false guise of advancement. And I strongly believe that's already been happening *a lot* over the past decade. Wheels are being reinvented, only this time most of them are squares. > Another thing to understand is that for example it took years to > develop classical analysis in math but nowadays it's just a couple of > semesters. Stealing a good vision from other expert(s) is a good > interim short-cut. > Well, there *is* that, too.
