This might just be me being a tiresome pedant (OK, it definitely is), but I think it's more accurate to say that groupthink *is* the pace of intellectual progress, and it's innovative/radical/whatever we want to call them thinkers who (luckily, for the rest of us plodders) moves things along.
Well, I can see why you say that--and that your comment adds useful information. But if you are merely differentiating between whether groupthink *is* or *slows* the pace of intellectual progress, I do think "slows" is the apt term--especially considering that I am focusing on the denial of Wegener's continental drift for decades.
Fair point. I disagree with what you say at 5:30ish though - how could your theory be bigger than Wegener's when continents are quite clearly much much bigger than even the largest books?
Good video! I'm not sure, though, that I agree that group-think has necessarily slowed the pace of intellectual progress in the aggregate. You correctly highlight the downside of group-think. That has surely been a negative in various cases.
But when a theory is widely accepted as being correct, group-think (belief in that theory) can accelerate progress and help that theory develop. It also has the value of weeding out the thousands of crackpot theories that would waste time otherwise. So I think there's a balance, and a certain healthy skepticism and bias against outside-the-box theories has practical value.
None of this is an argument, of course, that people should disregard evidence in front of their eyes, nor does it argue that the mountain of evidence you've collected about North should be disregarded.
Great points all. I am going to add another note to this video based on your comment: "As prompted by Bob Coyne in the comments section, I should add: Importantly, over 95% of all conventional wisdom in the hard sciences is obviously correct--especially on the macro level throughout all biology, chemistry, fluid dynamics, geophysics, genetics, meteorology, planetary science, etc. And well overy 99% of all individual challengers to scientific orthodoxy today are clearly wrong--and, frequently, barely rational. Thus groupthink helps us to avoid wasting time on what Coyne refers to as "thousands of crackpot theories."
Indeed, as groupthink is another evolutionary trait--that is, humans are predisposed to accept the beliefs of their tribe--it must confer some evolutionary advantage. And it is not hard to see why. Those who accepted the warnings and advice of elders and tribemates--about, say, which berries are poisonous or which directions are dangerous to travel, etc.--tended to survive and flourish to a greater extent than those who questioned and doubted everything.
(Finally, yes! More new North discoveries are forthcoming!)
This might just be me being a tiresome pedant (OK, it definitely is), but I think it's more accurate to say that groupthink *is* the pace of intellectual progress, and it's innovative/radical/whatever we want to call them thinkers who (luckily, for the rest of us plodders) moves things along.
Thoughts?
Well, I can see why you say that--and that your comment adds useful information. But if you are merely differentiating between whether groupthink *is* or *slows* the pace of intellectual progress, I do think "slows" is the apt term--especially considering that I am focusing on the denial of Wegener's continental drift for decades.
Fair point. I disagree with what you say at 5:30ish though - how could your theory be bigger than Wegener's when continents are quite clearly much much bigger than even the largest books?
Hahaha! Yes, true. Smiling: nice joke on a joke.
Good video! I'm not sure, though, that I agree that group-think has necessarily slowed the pace of intellectual progress in the aggregate. You correctly highlight the downside of group-think. That has surely been a negative in various cases.
But when a theory is widely accepted as being correct, group-think (belief in that theory) can accelerate progress and help that theory develop. It also has the value of weeding out the thousands of crackpot theories that would waste time otherwise. So I think there's a balance, and a certain healthy skepticism and bias against outside-the-box theories has practical value.
None of this is an argument, of course, that people should disregard evidence in front of their eyes, nor does it argue that the mountain of evidence you've collected about North should be disregarded.
btw, are any new North discoveries forthcoming?
Great points all. I am going to add another note to this video based on your comment: "As prompted by Bob Coyne in the comments section, I should add: Importantly, over 95% of all conventional wisdom in the hard sciences is obviously correct--especially on the macro level throughout all biology, chemistry, fluid dynamics, geophysics, genetics, meteorology, planetary science, etc. And well overy 99% of all individual challengers to scientific orthodoxy today are clearly wrong--and, frequently, barely rational. Thus groupthink helps us to avoid wasting time on what Coyne refers to as "thousands of crackpot theories."
Indeed, as groupthink is another evolutionary trait--that is, humans are predisposed to accept the beliefs of their tribe--it must confer some evolutionary advantage. And it is not hard to see why. Those who accepted the warnings and advice of elders and tribemates--about, say, which berries are poisonous or which directions are dangerous to travel, etc.--tended to survive and flourish to a greater extent than those who questioned and doubted everything.
(Finally, yes! More new North discoveries are forthcoming!)