G-K0F4D5MY2P Between Conformity and Creativity: Does Science Need More Imagination? - Tracking Wisdom

Episode 44

Between Conformity and Creativity: Does Science Need More Imagination?

Tracking Wisdom

Episode 44

Between Conformity and Creativity: Does Science Need More Imagination?

Recorded - 03/16/26

DESCRIPTION

What role does creativity play in how we understand reality—and what happens when the institutions responsible for expanding human knowledge become increasingly structured around collaboration, specialization, and consensus?

In this episode, we reflect on a conversation about art, innovation, and the nature of creativity before turning to a broader question: does modern science leave enough room for genuinely original thinking?

We explore the distinction between art and innovation, and consider whether creativity might be more than a uniquely human act. From there, the conversation moves into the structure of modern science itself. Large institutions, collaborative research, peer review, and increasingly resource-intensive projects have made extraordinary scientific achievements possible—but those same structures can also create incentives toward conformity, specialization, and lower-risk research.

Drawing on ideas raised by Iain McGilchrist and others, we consider the tension between individual insight and collective knowledge. Committees may be effective at evaluating, refining, and combining ideas, but where do genuinely new ideas originate? And how do we preserve space for unconventional thinking without abandoning the empirical rigor that makes science valuable?

The question isn't whether science needs less structure or less collaboration. It is whether a mature scientific culture can preserve both: the discipline required to test ideas and the imagination required to generate new ones in the first place.

Takeaways:

  • Creativity may be worth considering as more than artistic expression, particularly when examining innovation, discovery, and consciousness.
  • Modern scientific collaboration enables work that individuals could rarely accomplish alone, while institutional incentives may also discourage unconventional or high-risk ideas.
  • Original insight and collective evaluation serve different functions; scientific progress may depend on creating room for both.
  • Philosophy, intuition, and imagination can contribute to generating hypotheses without replacing empirical testing.
  • Preprints, broader critique, and more open exchange of developing ideas may provide ways to expose unconventional thinking to scrutiny without requiring immediate institutional consensus.
  • Scientific institutions are tools for producing knowledge—not knowledge itself—and can be examined and improved like any other human system.

Episode Resources

Consider showing your support to help make this content possible.

Review us on Podchaser

Leave a Review

We are grateful for your gifts

Support with a Tip

Show Merchandise

Tracking Wisdom Coffee Mug

ETH Studio Website

Tracking Wisdom Reflections (Substack)

Social Media:

Facebook

Instagram

X

YouTube

License: Unless otherwise noted, all excerpts of copyright material not owned by ETH Studio are used under the Fair Use doctrine for the purposes of commentary, scholarship, research and teaching. Works are substantially transformed by means of personal insight and commentary as well as highlighting important corollaries to additional thoughts, theories and works to demonstrate alignments and consistencies.

The views, interpretations, and opinions expressed in this podcast are solely those of the hosts and guests. They do not represent advice, counseling, or official positions of any institution, employer, or religious tradition. All content is provided for informational and entertainment purposes only. Please use your own discernment and, if needed, consult a qualified professional regarding any personal, spiritual, or mental health questions.

Copyright 2026 Ears That Hear Media Corporation

Keywords: creativity and consciousness, imagination and reality, Roger Penrose creativity, Ian McGilchrist divided brain, Esther Freud storytelling, creativity in science, art vs innovation, idealism vs materialism, philosophy and physics, reframing reality through imagination, institutional barriers to scientific creativity, peer review and preprints, collaboration vs lone genius, creativity and quantum physics, Tracking Wisdom Podcast, creative acts and consciousness, story archetypes hero's journey, art as communication, innovation in storytelling, science funding and innovation

Transcript
Peter:

You're listening to the Tracking Wisdom Podcast, exploring the universal

2

:

truths that we see woven through culture,

consciousness, and the human experience.

3

:

Ryan: Good morning everybody, and

welcome back to another episode

4

:

of the Tracking Wisdom Podcast.

5

:

I'm Ryan,

6

:

Peter: I'm Peter.

7

:

Ryan: And today we are talking about

an interview by the Institute of Art

8

:

and Ideas discussing the concept of

imagination, and creativity, and whether

9

:

creativity/imagination can help us

reframe our understanding of reality.

10

:

The panel was with Roger Penrose,

the physicist and Nobel Laureate,

11

:

Iain McGilchrist, Oxford Scholar

and author of, Master and His

12

:

Emissary, and also the Divided Brain.

13

:

And with them was Esther Freud,

she's an award-winning writer and

14

:

novelist and representative from the

more artistic and creative realm.

15

:

Okay so the question being,

the idea of human creativity.

16

:

So I think we think of art, although

there's also the idea of innovation,

17

:

I think there's a nuance there

that we might want to touch on.

18

:

But thinking of the human

creativity versus cosmic

19

:

creation and material expression.

20

:

Right?

21

:

So there's human creativity within the

material experience, and then there's this

22

:

concept of creativity, imagination being a

direct influencer on material experience.

23

:

Peter: Yes.

24

:

And so , just to clarify, we're

riffing on the question that was

25

:

presented to the panel more than

reporting on what the panel said.

26

:

Ryan: Yes.

27

:

Peter: Because, you were just

defining human creativity as art.

28

:

But in fact, Penrose was

describing scientific creativity.

29

:

He went…

30

:

Ryan: yes

31

:

Peter: at length to describe the

nature of creativity in science or the

32

:

nature of science as requiring some

creativity, particularly at this point.

33

:

Ryan: Yes.

34

:

Which I do want to talk about.

35

:

but before we get to creativity

in science, I wanted to discuss a

36

:

little bit about what creativity

means in general, what we mean by

37

:

creativity, how we think of creativity.

38

:

And one element of that is this

idea that we see imagination

39

:

and creativity as central human

qualities, vital to technology and

40

:

innovation as well as the arts.

41

:

I don't dispute that, but I wonder

how much creativity is a human central

42

:

human quality versus creativity being

a component of consciousness itself.

43

:

Peter: So, I want to kind of

reorient 'cause you just went on a

44

:

direction I didn't expect you to go.

45

:

Human creativity versus

conscious creativity.

46

:

Is that right?

47

:

Creativity.

48

:

Creativity as a, as a

49

:

Ryan: quality of consciousness.

50

:

Peter: As a human quality versus,

51

:

Ryan: yes,

52

:

Peter: as an absolute quality.

53

:

And you know, for, for newcomers,

54

:

Ryan: oh, yes.

55

:

Peter: I think we have to say that

we've pretty much landed as staunch

56

:

idealists, in other words, that matter

arises from consciousness versus the

57

:

kind of status quo paradigm, which is

that consciousness arises from matter.

58

:

And so as such, we can talk about

qualities of consciousness, but if

59

:

you're a materialist, that might not be.

60

:

Ryan: Right.

61

:

So the assertion in the video was

creativity is a central human quality.

62

:

From an idealism paradigm, if the

creation of material experience emerges

63

:

from, or is somehow secondary to,

consciousness itself; then creation, that

64

:

would be a component of consciousness,

and if consciousness innervates

65

:

all things in the material form.

66

:

Peter: Yeah.

67

:

Ryan: Then it seems to me that

creativity or creation is a

68

:

fundamental essence of all things.

69

:

And I was curious what you thought?

70

:

Peter: Right.

71

:

And, I readily agree.

72

:

Because creativity is an inherent

aspect of consciousness, and because

73

:

everything that exists, each thing that

you could name arises as an element

74

:

of consciousness or as a consciousness

construct, then each thing inherently

75

:

carries an aspect of creativity to it.

76

:

And not meaning, not just

the mark of creativity

77

:

Ryan: right,

78

:

Peter: But what we're saying is that,

79

:

Ryan: the capacity for creativity.

80

:

Peter: Right.

81

:

The capacity for creativity.

82

:

But I don't know what that looks like.

83

:

Ryan: Mm, mm-hmm.

84

:

Peter: So I can pick up this rock

and- this rock I'm holding here that

85

:

you can't see 'cause I'm on mic-

And this rock has creativity in it.

86

:

Ryan: Mm.

87

:

Mm-hmm.

88

:

Peter: Now what does that mean?

89

:

Ryan: Mean?

90

:

Yeah.

91

:

Peter: I don't know what that means.

92

:

And I think the reason that that's

fair, to say both of those things,

93

:

Ryan: mm-hmm

94

:

Peter: is that the idealist

model isn't complete yet.

95

:

So we can imagine how this rock arises

from consciousness, but we don't have

96

:

a complete picture of the mechanisms by

which consciousness is expressed in this

97

:

rock, and therefore how we might see the

capacity for creativity in this rock.

98

:

Ryan: Right.

99

:

Peter: I'm trying to be precise

about what I'm saying because this

100

:

rock is a, it's a manifestation of

consciousness itself, but I'm not

101

:

saying this rock is a conscious being.

102

:

And so what's the difference

between those two things?

103

:

I guess what I have to say is that, the

rock is not a being whose consciousness

104

:

I can access, or I can appreciate.

105

:

And just as we can't access the

consciousness of the rock, we can't

106

:

access the creativity of the rock.

107

:

Ryan: Hmm.

108

:

Peter: So I think this goes back to

something, we've talked about before.

109

:

Depending on our level of-

oh, this is getting complex-

110

:

as we manifest in

physical existence, right?

111

:

So we are now participating in

this physical material world.

112

:

We have relative levels of

complexity as consciousness.

113

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

114

:

Peter: So you and I are relatively the

same level of conscious complexity.

115

:

We cannot directly access

each other's consciousness.

116

:

But we can, to some measure,

access each other's consciousness,

117

:

primarily by shared language.

118

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

119

:

Peter: But you can kind

of see how I'm thinking.

120

:

You, I can kind of see

how you're thinking.

121

:

It's not perfect, but we

have some access there.

122

:

Our dog or cat, we have less access.

123

:

Like we can interact with them, say,

"oh yeah, I can tell what they're…",

124

:

you know.

125

:

But there's much less access with

an animal than with another person.

126

:

And then still less with a rock.

127

:

So it's a matter, I think of our ability

to access consciousness, of other

128

:

conscious beings, of different levels.

129

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

130

:

Peter: And it's not an absolute

limitation, of humans, because

131

:

there are humans who have incredible

access to animal consciousness, and

132

:

presumably, to non-animal consciousness.

133

:

Which, you can kind of sense into stories

and myths about people with access

134

:

to non-human, not only non-human, but

non-animal, non animate, consciousness.

135

:

So, I went way down a rabbit hole,

but just to say that's how I can

136

:

be comfortable saying the rock

has creativity, even though its

137

:

creativity is even less accessible

to me than its consciousness.

138

:

Ryan: Yeah.

139

:

Peter: Which is not at all accessible.

140

:

It's just that I intuit that

there's creativity there.

141

:

But, this is all presuming

an idealist perspective.

142

:

Ryan: Of course.

143

:

Peter: So poor sir.

144

:

Roger Penrose is totally like, yeah,

you guys are cra uh, like, you know-

145

:

and we've seen him multiple times

talking to idealists- and he kind

146

:

of just like, yeah, I can't see it.

147

:

Ryan: Yeah.

148

:

Peter: Which is fine.

149

:

So if you, the listener, are a

staunch materialist, this is nonsense.

150

:

It just does not fit into that paradigm.

151

:

So, I kind of question, and what we

noticed from watching this panel,

152

:

I don't know how you can have this

conversation with a materialist.

153

:

And I think Sir Roger kind of was lost

in the, like, he was like, well, you need

154

:

creativity to come up with new theories.

155

:

Ryan: Right.

156

:

Peter: It's like, that

wasn't the question.

157

:

Ryan: Right.

158

:

Peter: You know, it's not like "how

does human creativity come up with

159

:

theories to understand physical reality?"

160

:

I think the question was more

about " how does creativity

161

:

relate to the nature of reality.

162

:

" Ryan: Yes.

163

:

Peter: And McGilchrist seemed

the most comfortable with it.

164

:

And then the novelist, she doesn't travel

in these circles, or she's not conversant

165

:

in this way, and so she's talking

purely from an artistic perspective.

166

:

Which was fine, and interesting,

and I think more accessible,

167

:

to more people, than either the

physicist or the the philosopher.

168

:

Ryan: Right.

169

:

Peter: So, but I'm, I'm like, as

we start to talk about this, I'm

170

:

really acutely aware of what I

believe is gonna sound like nonsense

171

:

depending on your personal framework,

172

:

Ryan: right?

173

:

Peter: Yeah.

174

:

Ryan: Yeah.

175

:

So one thing I wanted to note was we

were referring to consciousness as

176

:

separate beings, where at the most

foundational level we're talking about

177

:

creativity being the expression of

the one consciousness through all of

178

:

the emanations of said consciousness.

179

:

But when we're talking about creativity

in the material sense, so now coming out

180

:

of cosmic creation into, creative acts,

innovation within the material existence.

181

:

Um,

182

:

I think it's undoubtable that art

and innovation slash technology

183

:

are both using creativity.

184

:

I am kind of curious about a

distinction between art and innovation.

185

:

Different endpoints,

I guess is what it is.

186

:

Peter: Yeah, I thought that's

exactly what I was gonna say.

187

:

Ryan: And it's probably

a bit of semantics.

188

:

Esther Freud, she's a novelist so she

was talking about story, and her point

189

:

was stories in general aren't new.

190

:

Story archetypes, like the hero's

journey or whatever archetype you

191

:

want to take, they're all the same

stories told in a different way.

192

:

And that it's incumbent upon the author

slash artist slash whatever to find a

193

:

new and unique way of telling a story.

194

:

And for me, art all art is a story.

195

:

That's why we connect

to it, as human beings.

196

:

Peter: Okay.

197

:

So now I want to put some nuance on the

terminology of creativity and innovation.

198

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

199

:

Yes.

200

:

Peter: Because I think, in Western

culture, innovation implies technological.

201

:

But I think in an absolute, innovation

is just another word for creativity.

202

:

Ryan: Yeah.

203

:

Peter: Because you can

have an innovative novel.

204

:

Ryan: Absolutely.

205

:

Peter: Right?

206

:

You can innovate a way of storytelling.

207

:

A book I read a little while ago

had the character find a book in

208

:

library and started to read the book.

209

:

And the book was telling

the character's own story.

210

:

Ryan: Hmm.

211

:

Peter: And, and so, throughout the

book, characters are finding books

212

:

that are telling their own stories,

and then the characters in the

213

:

stories eventually come together.

214

:

And so for me, I was like, wow,

this is a really exciting novel.

215

:

'cause you couldn't tell from page

to page whether you were in this

216

:

story or whether you were in the

meta story of another character.

217

:

Ryan: Oh, that's cool.

218

:

Peter: So it was very cool.

219

:

And I was like, oh, this is quite great.

220

:

This is a very original,

novel form for, for me it was.

221

:

So, you know we, we say

creativity versus innovation.

222

:

Now, to me that was an innovative novel,

223

:

Ryan: right

224

:

Peter: that was an innovation in the

technology of novel storytelling.

225

:

Ryan: Yeah.

226

:

Peter: But I think the way you were

using innovation was in the common

227

:

sense of technological innovation,

which is the word we use for creativity

228

:

instead of creativity because

creativity, air quotes means art.

229

:

Ryan: Right.

230

:

Peter: And innovation, air quotes

means technology or STEM or some kind

231

:

of, you know, hard science thing.

232

:

Which is what Roger was talking about.

233

:

Well, we need innovation in our theory

because the theory's not working.

234

:

So we need to innovate something new.

235

:

So in a sense I was thinking,

well actually innovation is the

236

:

bigger umbrella for creativity.

237

:

But it really doesn't matter.

238

:

I mean, you could say either you-

239

:

Ryan: they're all kind of synonymous-

240

:

Peter: pick the one that you,

that resonates with you more.

241

:

Ryan: Yes.

242

:

Peter: Right?

243

:

So, but they mean the same

thing, we just mean to apply

244

:

them in different areas of focus.

245

:

And so that's what you said and, as

you were introducing the subject, I

246

:

immediately intuited this distinction

between innovation, creativity; which

247

:

you said, was art is communication.

248

:

And, so I would say, yeah, art

is creativity that's intended to

249

:

communicate to another person.

250

:

Innovation is creativity that's more

interacting with non-human consciousness.

251

:

Ryan: Hmm.

252

:

Peter: So in the sense

that a novel is a thing

253

:

Ryan: mm-hmm.

254

:

Peter: In our universe, which is

therefore a expression of consciousness

255

:

or a conscious construct, right?

256

:

Ryan: Yep.

257

:

Peter: Any technology that we use

is a physical manifestation of

258

:

consciousness in our universe, but we

don't talk to those manifestations.

259

:

Instead, we use our creativity in a more

direct way, which we call innovation, to

260

:

influence how we interact with that thing.

261

:

Does that make sense?

262

:

Ryan: Yeah, I think that makes sense.

263

:

I had utility,

264

:

but that's kind of where I was like

265

:

technology slash innovation, so I

had innovation, but you're absolutely

266

:

right as far as the term innovation

is not exclusive to STEM, but instead

267

:

of telling story, or communicating,

technology is used, has has usefulness.

268

:

Peter: I was gonna say, you know,

I was gonna say, and, and not that

269

:

we never talk to our technology.

270

:

Really.

271

:

Not that we don't yell at our cars.

272

:

Ryan: Yeah.

273

:

Peter: Um,

274

:

Ryan: it doesn't work though.

275

:

Peter: Well, I'm actually

very intrigued by this kind of

276

:

insight or way of looking at it.

277

:

Right?

278

:

Communication or art or

expression is how we interact

279

:

with other human consciousness,

280

:

right?

281

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm

282

:

Peter: and everything else is how we

interact with the non-human consciousness.

283

:

And, there's a way of interacting

with human consciousness that

284

:

is non-physical and nonverbal.

285

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

286

:

Peter: I mean, specifically in my

experience, I'm talking about GAE.

287

:

But of course what we're

talking about are, what?

288

:

Wisdom practices or spiritual

practices or these nonconventional

289

:

practices, which put us in touch with

each other in nonconventional ways?

290

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

291

:

Peter: And art, art is kind

of in the middle there.

292

:

Ryan: So I just had a thought, I

don't know how this will resonate with

293

:

you, but I was thinking art as being

sort of the higher self-consciousness

294

:

expression and technology being

the ego's version of expression.

295

:

Peter: Yes.

296

:

And so we could go to McGilchrist,

and take left brain and right brain.

297

:

Ryan: Right.

298

:

Peter: And I would put language,

like literal language in left brain.

299

:

Ryan: Right.

300

:

Peter: And technology.

301

:

Left brain.

302

:

Ryan: Yeah.

303

:

Peter: And poetry.

304

:

And this is where it gets,

this is where you kind of slide

305

:

down the continuum, right.

306

:

You can use language imprecisely.

307

:

Ryan: Yeah.

308

:

Peter: For poetry where it's pure

art and the poetry is communicating.

309

:

Not through language, literally.

310

:

Ryan: Right.

311

:

Peter: But through art.

312

:

Ryan: Yep.

313

:

Peter: And so you're in that

right brain area, even though

314

:

you're using language to do it.

315

:

Ryan: Yeah.

316

:

Peter: But yes, I,

317

:

Ryan: yeah.

318

:

Peter: Yeah.

319

:

Ryan: It's interesting.

320

:

Um, we've touched on this a little

bit before it came up again, sort of

321

:

indirectly, is, the relation of philosophy

and intuition on scientific thesis.

322

:

Historically there was a much stronger,

connection or, collaboration with,

323

:

philosophical thought practices and

scientific pursuits; and in more

324

:

modern time, there's been a fracture

or distancing of those two things.

325

:

And what Roger and Iain were saying was

that, now getting towards creativity and

326

:

science, we're at an impasse, sort of

in the scientific discovery where the

327

:

theories aren't working the way that they

should or or there's inconsistency or

328

:

contradiction that is yet to be explained.

329

:

So using creativity is necessary,

injecting creativity is necessary to

330

:

move us to the next phase of that.

331

:

Peter: Yeah.

332

:

So this idea of, you know, the,

the model being incomplete or

333

:

internally self inconsistent or wrong.

334

:

Ryan: Right?

335

:

Peter: Right?

336

:

And, um, all models are wrong.

337

:

Ryan: Yeah.

338

:

Right.

339

:

Peter: Right?

340

:

So, a model is not wrong, to the extent

which, we have not yet applied it, to

341

:

a situation where it no longer works.

342

:

Ryan: Right.

343

:

Peter: We haven't found the limits

of our model, and that's, I think,

344

:

where we are with quantum physics.

345

:

Although, no, I guess that's not fair to

say because it happened at the beginning.

346

:

Right?

347

:

Pretty much the founders very

quickly bumped up against

348

:

the limits of their model.

349

:

We know it's not complete, but the

part that we have, it does work.

350

:

It, it, it's extremely effective in

creating atomic bombs and iPhones.

351

:

So we can keep on doing that.

352

:

And Penrose is just expressing we

found the limits of this model,

353

:

that's our cue to use creativity to

go beyond and fix it, or make it more

354

:

complete, you know, not complete.

355

:

Mm-hmm.

356

:

No model is ever complete.

357

:

' Cause the map is not the territory.

358

:

Ryan: Right.

359

:

Peter: The model is just the model.

360

:

And, and so I think he has

been frustrated for some time.

361

:

Yeah.

362

:

I mean, I think it's pretty clear when

you hear him talk, that no one has

363

:

gone back to say, Hey, let's make this

model more complete, we can do it.

364

:

And I think the key is what

you, you referenced, the split

365

:

of philosophy and science.

366

:

Ryan: Yeah.

367

:

Peter: And now you and I are very

clearly seeing the, the rapprochement.

368

:

Right.

369

:

We keep on seeing, and hearing,

philosophers reengaging and scientists,

370

:

reengaging with philosophers.

371

:

I mean, I first became aware of it

a few decades ago, with the Dalai

372

:

Lama engaging with scientists, and

scientists like, yeah, we need this

373

:

guy in our conference because he's

giving us kind of breakthrough ideas,

374

:

because he's not coming from this

inherently materialistic world worldview.

375

:

Ryan: Yeah.

376

:

Peter: But I think, you know,

until recently it's been a few of

377

:

these notable figures that have

kind of crossed the aisle on that.

378

:

I think there was some popes

who were pretty pro-science.

379

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

380

:

Peter: But they're the standouts,

because it's so unusual.

381

:

Ryan: Yeah.

382

:

Peter: But I think now we're

seeing, more exchange between

383

:

philosophers and physicists.

384

:

Ryan: Yeah.

385

:

As they were talking about the need

for creativity, Iain McGilchrist

386

:

was talking about how creativity

as a function can't be an output

387

:

of a group, like a large group.

388

:

Peter: Oh yeah.

389

:

Ryan: He talked, he said

specifically of a committee, right?

390

:

Peter: Yes.

391

:

Ryan: You you can't

committee-ize, art or creativity.

392

:

But the point being that he was, he was

suggesting that, the days of Einstein and

393

:

Schrodinger and all of them, at the turn

of the last century, we were sort of at

394

:

a pinnacle of scientific progress because

there was this openness to creativity.

395

:

Peter: He was specifically saying, now

papers have hundreds of authors on them.

396

:

And therefore everyone is struggling

for acceptability or, or compatibility.

397

:

You know, and so you're kind of,

following the level of mediocrity.

398

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

399

:

Peter: Right?

400

:

In, in terms of a new paper,

with a hundred people on it.

401

:

Which is a product of the technology,

because the technology is so

402

:

resource intensive, that you have

to involve a hundred collaborators

403

:

in order to split the cost.

404

:

Ryan: Right.

405

:

And as a function of institution,

and conformism, because they have a

406

:

tendency for self-preservation once they

get to a certain size and influence.

407

:

And because funding for highly

detailed and complex studies, is

408

:

a necessary part of scientific

pursuit, people are incentivized to

409

:

sort of toe a line of common wisdom,

instead of pushing boundaries.

410

:

That being, the stifling of creativity,

due to this overarching committee-

411

:

ization of science through institution.

412

:

But you made a comment off mic that

I thought was interesting, which was

413

:

you mentioned ideas being synthesized.

414

:

There is some level of group

activity that benefits creativity.

415

:

When you can bounce ideas,

416

:

Peter: Yes

417

:

Ryan: and synthesize ideas, and come

up with even new things that the, one

418

:

person couldn't think of in their own.

419

:

But I, and I think there's a,

there's an element of scale here.

420

:

Peter: Yes.

421

:

Yes.

422

:

Ryan: Iain McGilchrist had

mentioned maybe two or three.

423

:

I think it can probably

go to like 10 or 20.

424

:

Peter: So this is an aspect of science

that's gone back and forth over time

425

:

of isolation versus collaboration.

426

:

Ryan: Right.

427

:

Peter: Right?

428

:

And then people realize if we started

collaborating or we changed the

429

:

structure of meetings or we change

the layout of the research building

430

:

so that people naturally run into each

other and you know, they sit down for

431

:

coffee, and you get more collaboration,

and then you get more breakthrough.

432

:

Ryan: Right?

433

:

Peter: So, there is this

tuning aspect to it, that you

434

:

don't just stick in one state.

435

:

You don't just stick in the lab

and become completely siloed,

436

:

and not get others' ideas.

437

:

But you also don't work

solely in committee and never

438

:

have independent thought.

439

:

Ryan: Right.

440

:

Peter: And, and so I think it

sounds like the, the status quo

441

:

now is way too far the other way

442

:

Ryan: Yeah.

443

:

Peter: Of group think.

444

:

Ryan: Yeah.

445

:

Peter: I've heard this

many times in physics.

446

:

Ryan: Yeah.

447

:

Peter: Particularly.

448

:

Ryan: Yeah.

449

:

Peter: I'm sure it's

true throughout science.

450

:

Yeah.

451

:

Ryan: As we were discussing off mic,

we mentioned that institution is

452

:

not inherently bad and that there

is valid and legitimate reasons,

453

:

benefits, that are the impetus to

institutionalization of something.

454

:

And, at least in the scientific realm,

this idea of validation or the peer

455

:

review verification of findings, right?

456

:

A scrutinization of the

scientific method or process.

457

:

And I, I am throwing out this question

of validation versus marketplace of ideas

458

:

and I think that, you know, is there more.

459

:

Democratic way for ideas to be

sussed out through community as

460

:

opposed to centralized institution.

461

:

And one comment that I got from

Vinay Prasad, scientist, oncologist,

462

:

researcher, was the value of preprint.

463

:

That there should be, more

emphasis on trying to engage

464

:

with these pre-print forums.

465

:

Making it available, sort of

really broad and having the whole

466

:

community really, invested in,

assessing and, and discussing.

467

:

I guess this kind of comes to that

communal, uh, committee approach

468

:

Peter: Yeah.

469

:

So, I was going a different direction

with institution in terms of,

470

:

scalability of material resources.

471

:

Ryan: Sure.

472

:

Yeah.

473

:

Peter: But obviously.

474

:

For science, peer review

is a central function.

475

:

I mean, it is, it is institution.

476

:

It's kind of decentralized institution.

477

:

Right?

478

:

Because peer review doesn't happen in

479

:

Ryan: Right

480

:

Peter: you know, in a fixed committee.

481

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

482

:

Peter: But it does happen

through publishers.

483

:

Ryan: Right.

484

:

Peter: Right?

485

:

It's not like the entire

community does a peer review.

486

:

A publisher selects a bunch of

reviewers, and it goes out that way.

487

:

And so I think part of the

problem is there's bias built

488

:

in and, and there's pressure.

489

:

And, and then that the grant process, and

choosing your research topic process, is

490

:

like "well, let me choose what everybody

else is doing 'cause this is hot right

491

:

now, so I'm gonna get funding for it."

492

:

Ryan: Right.

493

:

Peter: And I'm gonna get published

because people wanna publish this because

494

:

this is what people are interested in

versus where the work needs to be done.

495

:

Ryan: Right.

496

:

Peter: Right?

497

:

I think that the idea that you're talking

about of kind of break open the review

498

:

process and put the ideas out there.

499

:

Like here are some new ideas

that people are working on.

500

:

It's not peer reviewed.

501

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

502

:

Peter: It hasn't been granted the status

of publication, but it's pre-print.

503

:

And therefore, more

people can be inspired.

504

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm.

505

:

Peter: Or can catch the problem

that this review committee they're

506

:

not gonna see that because they're

incentivized not to see the problem.

507

:

They wanna, they wanna publish

it for whatever reason.

508

:

Science is messy.

509

:

Ryan: Yeah.

510

:

Peter: Um, as someone just told me.

511

:

Ryan: I like the way you

had called it technology.

512

:

Off mic, you had said institution, as

a tool, is kind of like a technology.

513

:

And we don't see it as that, right?

514

:

Peter: Yes.

515

:

Ryan: We pedestalize it as

the ultimate authoritative

516

:

Peter: or we demonize it

517

:

Ryan: or we demonize it should,

518

:

Peter: like, there's no good reason, like

"all institutions should be torn down!"

519

:

Ryan: We perhaps give it too much, well,

I guess authority, but whatever the

520

:

Peter: Right.

521

:

Ryan: The converse of it.

522

:

Peter: Right.

523

:

So much value.

524

:

Value, we overvalue it.

525

:

Ryan: Yes.

526

:

Peter: We say it's inherently good.

527

:

So anything it does is good

528

:

Ryan: or the converse,

529

:

Peter: or it inherently bad.

530

:

Yeah.

531

:

Ryan: And if we view it more like

a technology, we can assess it

532

:

for its limitations and trying to

fill in those gaps instead of just

533

:

putting all the eggs in that basket.

534

:

Peter: This, this calls

me back to this pendulum.

535

:

Like trying to fine tune, trying to

find balance and because you have

536

:

to have mastery of a tool, right?

537

:

You have to have people

who are masters of it.

538

:

And you can't have only masters.

539

:

A tool that is only useful to

a master, with 10,000 hours of

540

:

experience, is not a very useful tool.

541

:

Ryan: Right.

542

:

Peter: Right?

543

:

So you wanna have some masters,

you want to have wide application,

544

:

you wanna have discipline, but

you want to have innovation.

545

:

I guess that that's where I'm,

trying to point is this, this balance

546

:

between discipline and innovation.

547

:

Ryan: Mm-hmm

548

:

Peter: you don't want everything

becoming a nail because the

549

:

hammer's the most popular tool.

550

:

And yet you don't want people

saying, oh no, this is the

551

:

only way you can use a hammer.

552

:

So you need the discipline to

actually read the manual, and then

553

:

you need the innovation to not say,

"oh no, I can't do that because

554

:

the manual says I can't do that.

555

:

Oh, this tool is only designed for

this, so I can't do this other thing."

556

:

Ryan: Right.

557

:

Peter: These are traps that I, I

guess they're intrinsic human traps

558

:

Ryan: Yeah.

559

:

Peter: That we can fall into.

560

:

And so, I guess it's let's try to

engage with our institutions, in

561

:

ways that benefit from the upsides,

562

:

Ryan: Right

563

:

Peter: and mitigate the downsides.

564

:

Ryan: Yeah.

565

:

Peter: And don't just go

along without understanding.

566

:

Ryan: Yeah,

567

:

Peter: yeah.

568

:

Ryan: Yeah.

569

:

I agree.

570

:

Uh, so creativity, imagination can it help

us reframe our understanding of reality.

571

:

Nah.

572

:

Uh, I think it's obvious that, and even

Roger Penrose agreed, we've reached a

573

:

point where something needs to give.

574

:

We need to be reengaging the

philosophy and intuition to create

575

:

our thesis, and point the funding-

I guess that's a whole other…

576

:

because that, that's a big barrier, right?

577

:

People can have all kinds of ideas,

but if they don't get funded…

578

:

Peter: well, this is- and now

you're going to the whole capitalist

579

:

Ryan: right

580

:

Peter: model and

581

:

Ryan: Yeah

582

:

Peter: now you're talking about really

large scale institutions, right?

583

:

Right.

584

:

Like yeah, it got us really far.

585

:

Ryan: Yeah.

586

:

Peter: You know, it, it created a

lot of innovation and, and scale.

587

:

In a good way.

588

:

And in a bad way.

589

:

And now it's like preventing

us from moving forward.

590

:

Ryan: Yeah.

591

:

Peter: Uh, yeah.

592

:

Ryan: Okay.

593

:

Then

594

:

on that note, we will put the,

uh, link to the full debate for

595

:

you, for your listening pleasure.

596

:

And love to hear what

you guys think about it.

597

:

And I guess we'll see you guys next time.

598

:

Peter: See you next time.

599

:

Ryan: Bye

600

:

Peter: bye.

601

:

Thank you for listening to

the Tracking Wisdom podcast.

602

:

Join us next time as we

continue the discussion.

603

:

Don't forget to follow us on

Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube,

604

:

and visit www.eth-studio.com

605

:

for more information and content

All Episodes Previous Episode

About the Podcast

Show artwork for Tracking Wisdom
Tracking Wisdom
Listen. Discover. Grow.

Listen for free

Support Tracking Wisdom

A huge thank you to our supporters, it means a lot that you support our podcast.

If you like the podcast and want to support it, too, you can leave us a tip using the button below. We really appreciate it and it only takes a moment!
Support Tracking Wisdom
A
We haven’t had any Tips yet :( Maybe you could be the first!