12 karma · joined September 11, 2013
Common in art communities and smaller circulations. Just an easy way to bundle things together and circulate them. Making zines are "democratized" now so they're seeing a comeback
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries#2...
Ctrl+F Albert Einstein.
Many things in history are discovered very close to one another--suggesting that maybe 100 or so average physicists (not sure what this means though, most people who get to that level are extremely intelligent), would probably work out what Einstein did. People have suggested discovery is "inevitable".
"But if you take that guy out of the team, then the other 9 could expend infinite resources and would never get anywhere." This leads me to believe the physicist example is off here.
Does this mean that most policy debates boil down to philosophical ones, trying to convince the other person to change their value(s)? First we must agree on a set of values, then we do research to find the best way of living by those values. We must sometimes acknowledge that these facts do not yet exist, and so we can't resolve our disagreement until that research is done.
I suppose if two people have the same value (e.g. immigrants have substantial moral worth), they can still disagree on how best to help them. If the data turns out that immigration makes everyone worse off, are we forced to bar them entry? It seems at odds with my moral compass, which leads to a muddled area of bending facts to appease moral codes. If you're available I would love to pick your thoughts on this.
I'm interpreting it like: this book is acting more important than it is, you turned a single page, and then closed the tab because you thought it wasn't worth reading.