Comments on: Innovation Requires Time

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:56:16 +0000

It was my pleasure, Jack. And, thank you for the inspiration for this post!

I'm struck by your description of Priestly's working method. He clearly
found a very productive way of dealing with cognitive dissonance. Perhaps
there's a lesson in his approach for all of us.

- Mary

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:53:08 +0000

Thanks for your kind words.

- Mary

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:56:16 +0000

By: VMaryAbraham

VMaryAbraham — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 02:53:08 +0000

Thanks for your kind words.

- Mary

By: jackvinson

jackvinson — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:53:30 +0000

Thanks for the link back, Mary. There was an interesting element to the discussion of Priestly. His innovations were revolutionary because he had that time to explore things that didn't make sense in the current understanding of the world. “That's odd. Why do mice survive much longer in a jar that has a plant living in it, when they are put in an empty jar.” What conditions extend longevity. Which don't?

The other fun with Priestly is that he was able to explode old theories, but he wasn't very good at synthesizing a new theory. Thus his clinging to the idea of “phlogiston.”

By: Seminary

Seminary — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:22:35 +0000

Very nice refreshing post. The title says it all.. Good job from the seminary