--- "Mark H. Herman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ---We can observe some general patterns. > ---1. Many great discoveries were made by accident. (If the > results were expected, it wouldn't be great). > > Reply: Perhaps this would justify allocating time to random > trial and error (of course not of anything on a finished > product stage), although I would not be surprised if the number > of plausible random trials was so huge and the likelihood of > benefit so small that it wouldnt justify resources.
Probably not. Great ideas weren't generated randomly, but by geniuses who had insights that others did not. > ---2. Many great insights are initially rejected by peers. (How > long does it take to award a Nobel prize?) > > Reply: This could indicate that a general principle that at all > times, the set of ideas put forth a smaller amount of time into > the past than the amount of time it would take for such an idea > to overcome peer rejection would have a greater chance of > containing a "diamond in the rough" than would ideas from other > times (other things being equal). > -Mark But that does not solve the problem of peer rejection. This is a problem that won't go away. Socrates was executed for his teachings. Galileo was persecuted by the church for claiming that the earth went around the sun, and his work censored for over 100 years. Many people today do not accept Darwin's evolution. Even Einstein rejected quantum mechanics. If we don't recognize human genius, how will we recognize it in machines? -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=8eb45b07
