-
@ LuisSP
2025-05-19 22:20:25
Outro dia postei sobre cientistas de extremo sucesso serem meio doidos. Aqui, Malone sobre um grupo de Premios Nobel. Tambem conheci nomes famosos que... *não* me inspiraram a ser como eles... o preço é alto e era claro olhando pra eles...
What I learned was these people are incredibly competitive. To my great surprise, because they had achieved the pinnacle of success in biological science and research: the Nobel Prize. And yet most of them were not content with that. There was a pecking order, a hierarchy among them, having to do with how important their prize was compared to the other person's prize, whether or not they'd had to share it or they got it alone.
The Nobel laureates were competing with each other for status, influence and immortality. They were striving so hard that they sacrificed their family, they sacrificed their life. They sacrificed their happiness on the altar of fame and fortune. I think that one of the big problems we have right now in Western society is rampant narcissism, the obsessive need to glorify the individual. That is not a path to happiness.
*Se apaixonar pela sua teoria* também acontece. Não só na ciência. Vale ler sobre a técnica de manter a mente aberta:
*How do you protect yourself, as an academic, from being caught within a dogma?*
‘People have a tendency to become invested personally in a hypothesis. They will say my hypothesis. As soon as you take ownership of a hypothesis, you can never be objective about it. At the center of my thinking is the Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, published by T.C. Chaimerlin in the 1960s. For this method, first you need to formulate a question based on your observations. That's perhaps the hardest thing, a good question. Once you formulate the scientific question, you need to generate as many possible explanations or hypotheses - for answering that question. It's very helpful to have outsiders that aren't in your discipline to participate in this effort to generate ideas. Then you design and perform experiments to differentiate between the hypotheses. In the end, what remains is the best approximation of scientific truth. The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn teaches that often the revolutionary ideas, transformational ideas, come from the outside.
Once you've generated this list of ideas, your experimental design becomes simplified. Your experimental design should be structured to differentiate between those hypotheses. So instead of "proving" your hypothesis, you design experiments to differentiate between these alternatives, in an iterative process. When you do this, it becomes child's play to get to objective "truth" because you're not invested in one idea or another. They're either all your hypotheses, or really none of them belong to you.
This Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses is a process that I assimilated, and was ground into my brain by my first scientific mentor. It served me really well, because it's at the root of how I'm able to repeatedly enable innovation. I've been through rounds of this where, because I was trained to be more objective about explaining the unknown, I was able to see things that other people weren't able to see. Simply because they were so invested in the current models. For example, the use of RNA as a drug to generate an immune response, but not as gene therapy. The problem with using it for gene therapy is that you're conveying a foreign protein, and the patient's body will reject it. When I had that realization it was heresy, because it basically destroyed the logic of an entire field; the field of gene therapy for treating genetic diseases.’
https://maartenfornerod.substack.com/p/robert-malone-from-dogma-to-innovation
https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/06/03/54/89/1000_F_603548936_vGBcUcKoiJBASCGHxVEDrZbhJveyN3tr.jpg