The danger of reading quotes like this is the message that some field is wrong and crazy is delivered as an aside when it is an hypothesis worthy of a great amount of questioning that is almost certainly largely incorrect.
He means gradual. If you look to long at random distribution and listen to people who are in the narration business to frame the random distribution you will start seeing patterns that don’t exist.
“Progressive” as in ‘gradual’ or as in ‘left-wing’?
If the former, how is that a danger? I mean, the same is true about general relativity or quantum field theory.
I will attempt to fix the quote:
The danger of reading quotes like this is the message that some field is wrong and crazy is delivered as an aside when it is an hypothesis worthy of a great amount of questioning that is almost certainly largely incorrect.
He means gradual. If you look to long at random distribution and listen to people who are in the narration business to frame the random distribution you will start seeing patterns that don’t exist.
No, those things do in fact make sense. They simply aren’t intuitive.