I understand the argument, I think I buy a limited version of it (and also want to acknowledge that it is very clever and I do like it), but I also don’t think this can explain the magnitude of the difference between the different fields. If we go back and ask “what was physics’ original goal?” we end up with “to explain how the heavens move, and the path that objects travel”, and this has basically been solved. Physicists didn’t substitute this for something easier. The next big problem was to explain heat & electricity, and that was solved. Then the internals of the atom, and the paradox of a fixed speed of light. And those were solved.
I think maybe your argument holds for individual researchers. Individual education researchers are perhaps more constrained in what their colleagues will be interested in than individual physicists (though even that I’m somewhat doubtful of, maybe less doubtful on the scale of labs). But it seems to definitely break down when comparing the two fields against each other. Then, physics clearly has a very good track record of asking questions and then solving them extraordinarily well.
I understand the argument, I think I buy a limited version of it (and also want to acknowledge that it is very clever and I do like it)…
Thanks! I’ve so appreciated your comments and the chance to think about this with you!
…but I also don’t think this can explain the magnitude of the difference between the different fields.
I think that’s right—and we agree. As we note in the post, we only expect our hypotheses to explain a fairly modest fraction of the differences between fields. We see our contribution as showing how certain structural features—e.g., the cardinality of the set of tasks in a field’s search space—should influence our expectations about perceived difference in difficulty; not claiming they explain all or even most of the difference.
Then, physics clearly has a very good track record of asking questions and then solving them extraordinarily well.
I agree that the greatest hits of physics are truly great! That said, if by “track record” we mean something like the ratio of successes to failures (rather than greatest successes), then I think it’s genuinely tricky to assess—largely for structural reasons akin to those we highlight in the paper. We tend to preserve extraordinary successes while forgetting the countless unremarkable failures.
I understand the argument, I think I buy a limited version of it (and also want to acknowledge that it is very clever and I do like it), but I also don’t think this can explain the magnitude of the difference between the different fields. If we go back and ask “what was physics’ original goal?” we end up with “to explain how the heavens move, and the path that objects travel”, and this has basically been solved. Physicists didn’t substitute this for something easier. The next big problem was to explain heat & electricity, and that was solved. Then the internals of the atom, and the paradox of a fixed speed of light. And those were solved.
I think maybe your argument holds for individual researchers. Individual education researchers are perhaps more constrained in what their colleagues will be interested in than individual physicists (though even that I’m somewhat doubtful of, maybe less doubtful on the scale of labs). But it seems to definitely break down when comparing the two fields against each other. Then, physics clearly has a very good track record of asking questions and then solving them extraordinarily well.
Thanks! I’ve so appreciated your comments and the chance to think about this with you!
I think that’s right—and we agree. As we note in the post, we only expect our hypotheses to explain a fairly modest fraction of the differences between fields. We see our contribution as showing how certain structural features—e.g., the cardinality of the set of tasks in a field’s search space—should influence our expectations about perceived difference in difficulty; not claiming they explain all or even most of the difference.
I agree that the greatest hits of physics are truly great! That said, if by “track record” we mean something like the ratio of successes to failures (rather than greatest successes), then I think it’s genuinely tricky to assess—largely for structural reasons akin to those we highlight in the paper. We tend to preserve extraordinary successes while forgetting the countless unremarkable failures.