Skylark, W. J. (2021). When is there a more-credible effect? [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7mysg

u/acholcombe (2020, August 6) Trust in scientific findings and experts, but, rationally, not in what experts tell us to do. Reddit. Retrieved from: https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/i4cxtz/trust_in_scientific_findings_and_experts_but/g1f5z2n/

Reminds me of the Stoics, such as Epictetus, who said that humans more often than not make false judgments in a certain situation based on their "sentiments," (he didn't use this word but I think it works) which then causes individuals to experience a "passion," such as grief, anxiety, despair, or anger. Stoics argued that people should indeed attempt to judge a situation correctly in order to avoid being overcome by passions and instead find true happiness (which for them was probably more equivalent to our American culture's version of "okay-ness").

This statement seems to me a stretch-- a very far stretch.

What does it mean to have "infinite ideas"? And how do you arrive at the judgments "enough" and "as good" here?

Ideas don't exist in isolation; they are not individual fruits to be plucked from the world of thought. Ideas are built upon other ideas. They are embedded within each other, juxtaposed one next to the other, stacked, remixed; varied one from the other, sometimes as a derivation, sometimes an inspiration.

And in the face of this, what is the notion of "creation"? Given a certain base of knowledge, there are some natural next steps that can be built from those basic building blocks.

Here we have to disentangle the notion of discovery from creation. I think maybe that, in part, is the notion of patents vs copyright, but in the land of software we seem to have a tangled mess.