RESEARCH: PRIEST VS GLADIATOR At one point I would have agreed with Adam Smith,

RESEARCH: PRIEST VS GLADIATOR

At one point I would have agreed with Adam Smith, because I believed research could be performed by slow individual contemplation of the written word, by the individual, at human scale – scientific research was therefore akin to scriptural study.

But like Popper, I have come to understand that once we passed the scale of research that was possible in achievable human time frames, achievable by individuals, and instead required a MARKET in which we contributed to research in parallel, I understood that one might say he has a theory and does NOT state it is true, but instead, asks for criticism, so that together with others in the market for truth, we contribute confirmation, criticism, and additional information, and together, iteratively improve the theory.

So smith argues as a priest, and I advocate arguing as a gladiator: I claim the top of the hill, and seek a man better than I to fell me. For I wish only to be led by better men. And the only test of superiority is defeat in a test that exists in the real world (operational language).