Submission statement: Adam Mastroianni examines why scientific discovery seemingly avoided low-hanging fruit for so long.
For example, why did the Ancient Egyptians know how to calculate the volume of a truncated pyramid 4,000 years ago, but medieval European thought that meat transformed into maggots until 1668? Why were ancient people able to make significant mathematical discoveries, while still demonstrating ignorance about basic real-life processes?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
seems to be the most important part and takes too long to get to this claim
I am appreciating idea of abstracts more and more.
I loved this article and believe that the preamble to the paragraph that you quote, was the correct length.
This issue is that our notions of "intuitive" are rather vague. We don't have specific words to single out the particular nuance of "intuitive" at issue. The author is forced to give examples to ground his use of the word "intuitive". The quoted paragraph appears intuitively obvious, but only in the context that was skillfully prepared for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link