[eof]

The structure of scientific revolutions (kuhns seminal contribution) has influenced and helped my thinking more than any other prose by a large margin.

The desperation which fully-subscribed adherents of a paradigm cling to said paradigm in spite of shortcomings of its explanatory power is the most powerful signal for detecting big shifts within a domain.

Kuhn only applies it to scientific paradigms, but the exact same patterns emerge within microcosms

[derbOac]

I don't disagree with you at some level, but I also see a lot of hype in modern science and intellectual discourse. Maybe not for all fields, but for many.

A recent paper has been making the rounds suggesting that disruptive research is becoming less common. This seems critically important for interpreting Kuhn.

Perhaps, for instance, Kuhn was writing or formulating his ideas in an unusually disruptive era. Or maybe our current era is less disruptive, and so discourse about ideas has to be approached differently, maybe more skeptically.

[eof]

How do you know if you’re the one calling disruptive ideas “hype?”

Because statistically, you probably are. We all are.