That takes about 5 minutes. Everyone agrees that corporate funding corrupts research. But what’s the solution?
If he doesn’t try to solve the problem, he’s just bitching.
We have computers and the Internet, man. Even major methodological problems (which are largely inherited) can’t stymie the amazing progress being made in lots of fields. I understand “dark age” is much catchier than “the best ever, with massive room for improvement.”Quote:
Re the amount of legitimate innovation, is this a higher % of research then other ages? Or is it merely a result of more junk science being done overall? Because yes more is objectively better, but it’s not an improvement in efficiency.
Is Rip concerned with aesthetics or conditioning as entertainment (i.e. most of the fitness industry)? How many exercises will Rip teach you? Many people could rightfully consider Rip “overspecialized.”Quote:
“Rip is someone who successfully figured out how to reconfigure the division of labor in his industry, advocating for vertical rather than horizontal integration.”
I disagree somewhat, Rip is successful because Starting Strength works. There’s no shortage of fitness talking heads that will tell you why blue shoes are better then red. The vertical integration applies to the knowledge behind why things are done as they are, all the way down to the first principles. No-one else has done this, and those that have come close have to be wrong for the sake of differentiation.
I’ve probably misunderstood your post but I don’t see what Rip and SS has to do with the division of labour in the fitness industry. A SS coach stands there and watches you, while a personal trainer at a globo gym does the same. The labour is the same, but the output is not.
One of Patterson’s key criticisms is that modern people are blinded by overspecialization. My point is, this topic is tricky and domain-specific. Patterson’s ambitious targeting of physics and logic and medicine, all at once, is not helpful.