76
edits
Solo55
Joined 2 February 2016
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways. | In relation to the nuclear fusion problem, my concern is with the creative process itself, mainly in its psychological dimension as a complementary factor to the commonly accepted points of view on innovation applied to science, and this is why I try to follow other pathways. | ||
Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights. | Though I show this project in a more or less similar form to a scientific paper, I know it is a very unorthodox work, since it doesn't fulfill the usual prerequisites of scientific documents because it is not based on previous papers or investigations, but in a different manner of gathering and interconnecting very diverse information to give place to new and untested insights. | ||
It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency. | It’s easy to notice that I'm not a scientist, and this is why I lack arguments reasonable enough to defend my hypotheses and proposals. But I'm afraid reason must be rather a good discriminating principle for our service than the ultimate goal to explain absolutely everything, though this is what it seems to be always pretending, since if this were the case everything could be easily and mechanically explained. In this sense, I think it would be necessary to remember the difference between the objective physical data we obtain and our subjective interpretation of them, since the latter may be excessively conditioning and restricting our decisions with too much frequency. | ||