Disruptive thinking in progress

[ganulv]

I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing: nothing wrong with imposing a high level of rigor on incoming ideas.

[…]

It is important to be skeptical about the old. It is equally important to be skeptical about the new.

I don’t disagree as long as it is engaged and critical (as in thought, not snark) skepticism. Group think isn’t that at all, though. It’s more like non-thought.

[Dayuhan]

I don’t disagree as long as it is engaged and critical (as in thought, not snark) skepticism. Group think isn’t that at all, though. It’s more like non-thought.

Also worth remembering that those who try to pass ideas off as revolutionary and disruptive routinely accuse critics of groupthink, as a way to avoid addressing the points made by critics.

Always worth remembering that coining a buzzword or selling a "paradigm shift" can be a device for career enhancement and self-promotion, rather that a genuine effort at advancing the state of thought on any given issue. There are certain symptoms that indicate the presence of self-interest and self-promotion as motives, and they should not be ignored. This phenomenon is not unknown in the Small Wars universe.

[ganulv]

Also worth remembering that those who try to pass ideas off as revolutionary and disruptive routinely accuse critics of groupthink, as a way to avoid addressing the points made by critics.

Freudian theory can be defended in that manner but bench science is a different matter. If your ideology of choice demands that the research question be testable and that the test be replicable fads don’t tend to find much traction. On the other hand, that same ideology doesn’t necessarily guarantee that your research design is not overly reductive or that that which is accepted as axiomatic exists in the real world.

[Dayuhan]

Questions of policy and strategy cannot generally be considered "bench science".

Sometimes new ideas really are new, and sometimes they're really revolutionary. When their proponents announce them by thumping their chests and shouting about how revolutionary and disruptive they are, though... time for skepticism to go into high gear.

[ganulv]

Questions of policy and strategy cannot generally be considered "bench science".

No, but we were talking about the scientific consensus. Just sayin’.

Sometimes new ideas really are new, and sometimes they're really revolutionary. When their proponents announce them by thumping their chests and shouting about how revolutionary and disruptive they are

marketing.