Edge.org asked 175 people scientists, intellectuals, and others about what scientific idea should be retired. A quick roundup of some of my favorite answers:
Provocatively, Paul Saffo argues that we should stop evaluating scientific knowledge with the traditional notion of progress: instead of measuring scientific progress/change by how much we know, we should think about how science helps us realize how many mysteries are still out there.
Brian Christian explains why traditional academic publishing is an outdated way to disperse scientific knowledge.
Kathryn Clancy makes excellent points about labor exploitation (and sexual harassment) in science, tying it to a acientific culture that devalues people for the sake of ideas.
Bart Kisko challenges assumptions that statistical independence even exists. This point reminds me of theorist Karen Barad's notion of intra-action, the idea that all interactions are actually intra-actions within a connected system.
Geoffrey West wants to stop the quest for a Theory of Everything. He points out that Questioning A Theory of Everything may be beating a dead horse since I’m certainly not the first to be bothered by its implicit hyperbole but let’s face it, referring to one’s field of study as The Theory of Everything smacks of arrogance and naivité." Good point, but doesn't everyone secretly believe that their own field holds the real key to knowledge?
He goes on to argue that "Perhaps, then, the most surprising consequence of a visionary Theory of Everything is that it implies that, on the grand scale, the universe, including its origins and evolution, though extremely complicated, is not complex but, in fact, is surprisingly simple since it can be encoded in a limited number of equations, conceivably only one.... So, while applauding and admiring the search for a Grand Unified Theory of all the basic forces of nature, let’s drop the implication that it can, in principle, explain and predict Everything. Let us instead incorporate a parallel quest for A Grand Unified Theory of Complexity."
Seirian Sumner provides a clear explanation of why we should scrap the idea that Life Evolves Via A Shared Genetic Toolkit. Near, the end, she states:"But the presence of unique genes in all evolutionary lineages studied to date now tells us that de novo gene birth, rather than a reordering of old ingredients, is important in phenotypic evolution. The over-abundance of non-coding DNA in genomes is less puzzling, if they are a melting pot for genomes to exploit and create new genes and gene function, and ultimately phenotypic innovation. The current thinking is that genomes are constantly producing new genes all the time, but that only a few become functional."
Laurie Santos and Tamar Gendler provide an amusing name for this fallacy: "And so the idea that cognitive science needs to retire is what we'll call the G. I. Joe Fallacy: the idea that knowing is half the battle. It needs to be retired not just from our theories of how the mind works, but also from our practices of trying to shape minds to work better."
Fiery Cushman explains why it's not true that Big Effects have Big Explanations.
Robert Sapolsky uses interesting metaphors to explain what's wrong with the phrase "a gene-environmental interaction."
Dean Ornish urges people to remember that Large Randomized Controlled Trials are always best.
Benjamin Bergen provides a succinct explanation of the problems with Universal Grammar.
Gary Marcus provides good advice on not idolizing Big Data.
Amanda Gefter on the idea of "the" universe.
There are a few posts on altruism, but Tor Nørretranders explains clearly the logical problem behind the concept itself. Jamil Zaki makes interesting comments on altruism as well.
N.J. Enfield on the idea of Competence in the field of linguistics.
Steve Giddings on problems with Spacetime.
It seems like everywhere you turn, there's some nonsense about left brain/right brain. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore explains well why this is a problem. So does Stephen Kosslyn.
Gerd Gigerenzer slams common issues with fMRI studies in Scientific Inference Via Statistical Rituals.
Kurt Gray explains why psychology needs to focus less on taxonomy.
Samuel Arbesman on why Big Science is not the key to all science.
Gregory Benford explains why it's not that the case that The Intrinsic Beauty and Elegance Of Mathematics Allows It to Describe Nature.
W. Daniel Hillis on the Cause and Effect Paradigm.
Azra Raza on the failures of using mouse models in medical research.
Nicholas Christakis on overstating the importance of the Average.
Rebecca Goldstein on why science does not make philosophy obsolete.
Scott Atran on the problems with IQ.
Roger Schank on Artificial Intelligence.
Adam Waytz takes on the idea that Humans Are By Nature Social Animals.
Lee Smolin on the idea that The Big Bang Was The First Moment Of Time.
Eric Topol on the idea of One Genome Per Individual.
Carlo Rovelli on the idea that geometry represents physical space.
Max Tegmark on the concept of infinity.
Edward Slingerland on Scientific Morality.
Rodney Brooks on the computational metaphor.
Sean Carroll on Falsifiability.
Kevin Kelly on Fully Random Mutations.
