Breakthrough Science, individual accomplishment or multiple discovery

OkhamsRazor · #1 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 03:07 PM

ATTENTION: THIS THREAD IS CLOSED TO COMMENT UNTIL THE TWO PRINCIPLE DEBATERS HAVE CONCLUDED THEIR ARGUMENTS
(please copy and paste this at the top of each post)

The debate will commence when we have agreed on the structure and rules for the debate. PR has "won the toss" and will be first to post. For discussion on format, rules and structure please go to that forum heading.

PaleRider · #2 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 04:00 PM

ATTENTION: THIS THREAD IS CLOSED TO COMMENT UNTIL THE TWO PRINCIPLE DEBATERS HAVE CONCLUDED THEIR ARGUMENTS
(please copy and paste this at the top of each post)

First let me offer my apologies to the board for this silliness. Okham’s razor believes that somehow the board will settle this issue if it is placed here.

The issue at question may be found at this thread.

12$ per gallon would be good for America

I suppose I will lay out the dispute in chronological order and will use exact quotes cut and pasted from the thread that are pertinent to the issue between Okham and I to ensure accuracy. I will redact as much superfluous information as possible. If Okham believes that any of it is relevant then he is welcome to bring it forward.

Eli suggested $12 per gallon gas for various reasons.

Shannon Rose then said that she didn’t think that much would change except people would ride bikes.

Okham pointed out that $12 gas would cause far more problems than simply forcing people to ride bikes.

I agreed with him and expounded on the point with an observation that liberals tend to think shallowly rather than examine what sorts of problems a particular course of action might actually cause.

In the next post, he pointed out that Eli was conservative even though I was agreeing with him on the comment that he had made to Shannon Rose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okham

Pale, first of all, Eli has been a conservative for most of his 83 years. So your knee-jerk shallow assessment of him based on hos last post is so far off base... I can't even think of an appropriate parallel.

There was some commentary with regard to compensation for discoveries and then Okham said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okham

We does there need to be "considerable profit motive"? Why not just a profit motive? Why not do it because it's the right thing to do? Why not do it for the glory of your great country? Why do we have to feel like lottery winners in order to motivate us?

Since he brought Eli into the discussion, I followed his lead and said that the proposition of $12 gas was poorly thought out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pale rider

The simple fact that $12 gas will cause the greatest harm to those who can least afford it is testament enough to the shallowness of this thought. If this is an anomoly, I will apologize after I have had time to look at more of his writing.

And in response to his question of why we have to feel like lottery winners in order to motivate us I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pale rider

Where do you get this "us" from. The people who posess the intellectual wattage required to even imagine the mechanism by which cold fusion, or hydrogen fuel cells, or solar panels that are an order of magnitude more efficent than what we have today, or room temperature super conductors might become a reality are not a dime a dozen. If history is any indicator, we get maybe one or two such people, in any given field, in a generation. With a one in three chance, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that our most brilliant minds, the ones who might have changed the world, died a month or so after they were concieved.

When it comes to moving our technology forward by quantum leaps, there is no us. We can't make it happen no matter how hard we try because even if we all got together and tried as hard as we could, we couldn't even imagine what the mechanisms might look like. The great leaps forward in any field come from[b] one or two brilliant minds…[/b

At this point with regard to the issue at hand is the fact that Okam said that Eli has been a conservative for most of his 83 years, and that I clearly stated that the great leaps forward in our technology come from one or two brilliant minds. As silly as it sounds, this is at the heart of the issue.

Then there was some condescending bilge and in response to my “Where do you get this “US” from statement, Okham said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by okham

Defeatist. Don't apply your inability to conceptualize these mechanisms to the rest of us. For those of you who have a hard time with it (not everyone is of a scientific mind, and that's fine, we need artists and economists too) your role is not to come up with the next "quantum leap" but to support the folks who do get it through education and policy. If science isn't your bag, fine, but don't imply that everyone needs to understand the nitty gritty in order to move forward.

I then replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pale rider

Name a few instances where a new technology that moved us far beyond where we were was being produced by more than one or two individuals at the same time. Name a couple where the quantum step forward was the product of "group think" rather than the vision of one brilliant individual. The fact is that the great leaps in any given field come from one or two individuals in any given generation.

The point is still that the great leaps forward are the product of one or two minds, not the combined output of any particular group.

Then Okham replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by okham

Since it is not my job to remove your ignorance for you, but only my duty to point it out, I will oblige by supplying you with the few examples that you have requested.

Liebnitz and Newton discovered calculus at the same time.

Wallace and Darwin discovered natural selection at the same time. (don't even say it PR)

Gray and Bell invented the telephone at the same time.

It is now up to you to challenge your own ideas as any good researcher/scientist does. But I'll help you on your way.

Multiple Independent Discovery & Creativity in Science

This is an article about Ogburn and Thomas and their research into the phenomenon of multiple independent discovery. This is a widely accepted occurrence as anyone who has spent anytime doing patent searches will tell you. Hell, just look at the recipients of Nobel Prizes in the Sciences. They are littered with independent co-discoverers, and cursed by some who did not receive recognition despite having made the same discovery at the same time. They further go into the principles, methods and mechanisms of discovery and why this seems to happen all the time.

Note that in his examples, he is apparently agreeing with me in that he names discoveries that were the product of two minds as opposed to group think. At this point, it seems that he simply has an issue with me and is unaware of the fact that he is making my case.

The article he links describes a theory concerning the idea that great discoveries are often made by a couple of individuals at the same time. The article presents a statistical study in which 1000 possible discoveries are considered. Statistically, the study broke down the possibility of being discovered by multiple individuals as follows:

Discovery by 1 individual – 368 of the 1000
Discovery by 2 individuals- 184 of the 1000
Discovery by 3 individuals- 61 of the 1000
Discovery by 4 individuals – 15 of the 1000
Discovery by 5 individuals - 3 of the 1000
Discovery by 6 or more individuals – 1 of the 1000

(continued)

PaleRider · #3 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 04:01 PM

(continuation)

I took this to agree with me that great discoveries are the result of a very limited number of brilliant minds rather than the product of cooperative efforts and pointed this out to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pale rider

I have already read that research. It only serves to furthur substantiate my original position. As I have already stated, most giant steps are made by one or two individuals, not group think. The THEORY represented in this article still makes the point that the intellects capable of making the great strides forward are very few and very far in between.

I suppose at this point, I should ask the question. Does this article and Okham’s reply support my position that great leaps forward are indeed most often the product of one or two individuals as opposed to groups? And if it does support my position, is Okham not agreeing with me but being combative anyway?

Okham replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by okham

Also, you stated over and over again that the INDIVIDUAL is the unique entity given to advanced insight. Now you say one or two. I don't know how to tell you this, but two is a multiple.

There is absolutely nothing in this century old study, widely cited in terms opposing your position and as the preeminent word on this phenomenon, which supports your position. The basis for hundreds of articles and papers that use it as a core reference PRECISELY supporting my point.

At this point, it is clear that he has forgotten what I originally said or is simply ignoring it in order to continue the argument.

I pointed this out to him by reminding him that I had originally said that most great leaps are the result of one or two individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pale rider

Comprehension thing again? Re read what I originally said. Note that I said one or two individuals.

Name a few instances where a new technology that moved us far beyond where we were was being produced by more than one or two individuals at the same time.

Okham replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by okham

Care to take this to the formal debate forum and let the members decide? If you are so sure of yourself, put your money where your mouth is. Or hell, lets hear from them right here. Or should we make a poll? Doesn't matter which you choose, you're gonna loose.

As for your one example of stating one or two, you stated repeatedly INDIVIDUAL. No matter, either way.

Meanwhile, I was having a side discussion with Eli. Remember Eli? He had asked me why I felt the need to put him in a conservative box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eli

I am not a conservative either. Why do you people have to put everyone in the conservative/liberal box?

To which I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pale rider

Occam put you in the conservative box, not me. I clearly stated in my first post on this thread that you were not conservative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by okham

You're distortions of truth are getting really annoying. What I said was that he is not a liberal and that for most of his life he indicated that he voted conservative.

OK, at this point, lets go back to his original characterization of Eli:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Okham

Pale, first of all, Eli has been a conservative for most of his 83 years. So your knee-jerk shallow assessment of him based on hos last post is so far off base... I can't even think of an appropriate parallel.

Does he or does he not tell me in no uncertain language that Eli is a conservative? Is it reasonable to suggest that I would get anything from that statement other than the fact that he was telling me that Eli was a conservative?

At this point, I brought the pertinent parts of the conversation forward for him to make my point. (the pertinent parts being most of what I have cut and pasted to this thread)

Okham replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by okham

Look jackass, YOU drew me into this BS from one simple statement.

So that is the whole sad “he said – he said” story.

At this point, I suppose that Okham expects for the members of the board to rush forward and defend him by telling me that I am completely wrong on my position that most great discoveries are the result of one or two individuals and that he did not indicate to me that Eli was a conservative. I guess that I am supposed to be browbeaten to the point that I might not want to show my face around here again.

So let the browbeating begin…

OkhamsRazor · #4 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 04:14 PM

Okayyyy.... I guess rules of formal debate don't concern you.

What does Eli have to do with this debate?

Once again you have demonstrated that you are an opportunist and not much more.

Guess I win by default since you breached the generally accepted rules of a formal debate.

Thank you, good day

If you wanna try again without the Eli thing, please start another thread. If you want to formally debate your position on your ridiculous obsession with Eli's leanings, that is a SEPERATE ISSUE and should not have been brought into this thread, it should be on it's OWN THREAD. You also did not post the header as I requested.

More examples of your selective reading and comprehension.

YEA I WIN!!!

Oh and for clarification on this whole Eli, what is he, mess... go to the thread "Reply to Eli and Okham". There you will find the transcript of the private conversation as I promised PR that I would post if he continued (ad nauseum) with this stupidity.

PaleRider · #5 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 04:45 PM

Actually this was about you not grasping that you were making my case for me and trying to wiggle out of the fact that it was you who labled Eli as a conservative.

The only way to sort it out was to bring it here, condense it to its essence, and let the members decide.

I got the impression that this was what you wanted...for the members to tell me that you had not in fact changed your story and that you had not in fact supported my position. Guess I could have predicted that you would change your story once we got here.

Typical.

PaleRider · #6 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 05:03 PM

By the way, I understand completly why you would not want to have the actual conversation examined.

OkhamsRazor · #7 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 06:53 PM

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL

I DON"T CARE

This is without a doubt the dumbest thing I've been involved in here and that is saying ALOT.

As far as examining the conversation? THE EINTIRE THING IS PUBLIC RECORD NOW, For those that wish to waste their time on it go for it. But it ODESN"T need to be reexamined by you for others to make up their own minds if (and I don't know why) they wish to do so.

I'm willing to drop it and come what may... the confidence in position my friend. You have to keep harping on it to annoyance, in a vain attempt to show everyone you're right. WHO CARES?

If you still want to debate the science thing then, cool. I will address only that part of the post. THIS ELI THING IS DONE!

PaleRider · #8 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 07:15 PM

So you admit that you put him in the conservative box?

OkhamsRazor · #9 (**permalink**) 06-18-2006, 07:27 PM

You just can't do it can you? LMAO. No, I admit reporting to you what Eli had said in a previous post, which he has now verified as fact. NOW PISS OFF.

PaleRider · #10 (**permalink**) 06-19-2006, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OkhamsRazor

You just can't do it can you? LMAO. No, I admit reporting to you what Eli had said in a previous post, which he has now verified as fact. NOW PISS OFF.

This is not a report. This is a statement.

Pale, first of all, Eli has been a conservative for most of his 83 years. So your knee-jerk shallow assessment of him based on hos last post is so far off base... I can't even think of an appropriate parallel.

Are you so immature that you can't admit that you did a thing? Geez, grow up and be a man. Admit your mistakes and move on. You are like a child with chocolate and crumbs all over his face swearing that he didn't get in the cookies.

Pale, first of all, Eli has been a conservative for most of his 83 years. So your knee-jerk shallow assessment of him based on hos last post is so far off base... I can't even think of an appropriate parallel.

This is presented as a statement of fact by you to me. You make no mention of "reporting" anything. If you meant something else, then you should have said something else. This statement says that Eli has been a conservative for most of his life. It says nothing else.