Generational cycle research

[Ragnarök_62]

(08-31-2016, 06:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Maybe most possible revisions to the theory have been researched and mulled over by now.

Uh, no.  I found this gem over on http://www.nakedcapitalism.com .

Jake Mudroski Wrote:Heh, a *miracle indeed. Kind of funny that the authors are Oxford-affiliated yet their stuff shows up here in the comic sense of “there are n things wrong with this picture — can you find them all?”
To add to your points, I’ll highlight their mixing up of “Science” as an idealized abstract conception of a process, with implicit inevitability of progress and the alternative “Science” as it so happens to be practiced in a particular culture at a particular time.
Some recent **NC links have been great at showing the damage caused in the sciences by the current bad structures of funding, hiring, and publishing that reward carelessness and narcissism.
To your point, “But at a certain point they are not worth retrieving,” I’ll merely add that at certain points the complexity becomes too great for key foundational knowledge to transfer to newer generations. And the learning curve becomes so daunting that the diligent folks invariably get outpaced by the careerists, fakers and self-promoters. This leads to a cycle of generations always “discovering America.”
One wonders if the authors can account for the lack of new Beethovens and the quantity of revenue-producing crap in the music world, and whether they see how that dynamic applies to the practice of science today.

*Technology-Driven Growth.

**Naked Capitalism.