Comments on: Anything you think is either unoriginal, wrong or both

By: Harold Jarche » Some unoriginal and wrong thoughts

Harold Jarche » Some unoriginal and wrong thoughts — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:53:56 +0000

[...] “Anything you think is either unoriginal, wrong or both” [...]

By: Twitter, I finally get you. · The Daily Bones

Twitter, I finally get you. · The Daily Bones — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:24:54 +0000

[...] It was during my thoughts around this last point that I realized the true allure and power of Twitter. The middle-men connecting the average person with anyone has been removed, whether they know them personally or not. First off – I in no way assume this has not been thought of before, or never been discussed; as I’m a firm believer that anything you think of is either unoriginal or wrong. [...]

By: The persistently stupid idea « Bumblebee Labs Blog

The persistently stupid idea « Bumblebee Labs Blog — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:23:55 +0000

[...] There are only three types of ideas. [...]

By: Hang

Hang — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:29:41 +0000

I was probably a bit unclear in my post. The phenomena I was talking about was the one where people first realize that there's a bias against wrong ideas and think “well, I'm going to *fix* this once and for all and it will be a great boon to society and bootstrap progress to the next level because never again will people fail to aware of wrong ideas again”.

This is a supreme irony because they are falling into the exact same trap that they were just made aware of. They're walking over the corpses of a thousand other people who tried the exact same thing after the exact same realization and there's something both deeply funny and deeply sad about this that I couldn't resist mentioning.

By: Basu

Basu — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:40:58 +0000

In science (elsewhere too?) “right” and “wrong” are not absolute qualities. They change with time. What was right once, e.g. Newton's laws, can be replaced by something more right, e.g. Relativistic Dynamics a la Einstein. As a result, the entire body of scientific literature is a mish-mash of right and wrong. Ideas are correct in some limited way. And yes, all those papers can be thought to be an ever increasing encyclopedia of errors.

By: Mayuri

Mayuri — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:16:15 +0000

There is no repository because mistakes are not going to be glorified..but they are recorded and difficult to find. Recording mistakes is not an awful idea.

A famous example would be the two proposed models for structure of the Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
We all now know that the DNA is a double helix as what was suggested by Watson and Crick in their publication (http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollec...)

However, there is available information about the triple helix model proposed by Pauling and Corey. http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollec...

It gives a perspective about how data was interpreted at the time and saves anyone new from coming to the same wrong conclusion.

By: Hang

Hang — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 01:17:35 +0000

Can you point me to a repository of failed ideas? An encyclopedia of error? That it doesn't exist is proof that is one of those unoriginal & wrong things that people try & fail to create again & again.

By: Mayuri

Mayuri — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 22:19:04 +0000

You've managed to express a very elaborate idea in a catch phrase
Loved the post.

PS: Why is recording one's errors “a common awful idea.” ?
It saves time and resources for anyone else trying the same thing a few years later!
In fact, this is one of the most common practices in science!

By: name

name — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:59:31 +0000

Nil novus sub soli.

By: The Dream Job « Bumblebee Labs Blog

The Dream Job « Bumblebee Labs Blog — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:45:48 +0000

[...] Dream Job is so stunningly obvious that it must be wrong. I can’t possibly have been the first person to have come up with this. But if it’s [...]