Sorry for the confusion. You were talking about merely “being a scientist”, which obviously does require a skillset, so I responded to that.
In the post you replied to, I was talking about the difference between “successful scientists” who have actually made a significant scientific achievement, and other scientists, who I think will often have comparable skillsets. That difference is what I’m trying to explain. I do not think “science is mainly luck”.
If there’s a skill that distinguishes successful scientists from scientists that aren’t it’s not clear that the same skill also makes successful entrepreneurs.
As a result you can assume that the skill doesn’t exist just because scientific success doesn’t transfer to reliable success as an entrepreneur.
Sorry for the confusion. You were talking about merely “being a scientist”, which obviously does require a skillset, so I responded to that.
In the post you replied to, I was talking about the difference between “successful scientists” who have actually made a significant scientific achievement, and other scientists, who I think will often have comparable skillsets. That difference is what I’m trying to explain. I do not think “science is mainly luck”.
If there’s a skill that distinguishes successful scientists from scientists that aren’t it’s not clear that the same skill also makes successful entrepreneurs.
As a result you can assume that the skill doesn’t exist just because scientific success doesn’t transfer to reliable success as an entrepreneur.
You mean “As a result you can’t assume”?
Yes.