I hate to break this to the author of the linked article, but in reality, it's the other way around. Ideas have supreme value, and how you "execute" them is close to irrelevant in the big picture.
Consider Gregor Mendel's pea-growing experiments. His way of executing his idea wasn't at all important compared to the idea itself, which didn't come to fruition for decades after his death. How Mendel arrived at his results -- his "execution" -- was irrelevant to the ideas of genetics he discovered.
Consider Einstein's relativity ideas -- they were philosophical curiosities for most of Einstein's life, not an exploitable commodity, not "executable" at all. Only decades later, after they and Einstein were well-seasoned, did their "execution" make any difference at all.
Consider quantum theories -- conceived in the 1920s, at first they had no practical value at all and even created widespread doubt about their connection with reality. As with relativity, they didn't see anything resembling "execution" until recently.
The history of technology and science flatly contradicts the author's thesis. It's the other way around -- ideas have absolute value, and how one executes them is irrelevant.
I think here the author is defining value as stock market value. Honestly you need both. executing with no market differentiation would be difficult to grow and/or find investors.
Well, I think what is meant by value here is more "ability to make money with it" than "stock market value" per se, although certainly stock market value often follows.
> Honestly you need both. executing with no market differentiation would be difficult to grow and/or find investors.
That's formally known as "begging the question", i.e. a self-referential circle that uses the argument's thesis in support of the argument. History doesn't care about marketing, it cares about ideas.
We all have benefited enormously from Einstein's ideas, and those of the creators of quantum theory, but none of those people marketed their ideas, or would have considered that important. History doesn't care either. We remember (a) inventions, (b) the inventors, and finally (c) those who exploited the inventions, in that order.
4 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 24.4 ms ] threadConsider Gregor Mendel's pea-growing experiments. His way of executing his idea wasn't at all important compared to the idea itself, which didn't come to fruition for decades after his death. How Mendel arrived at his results -- his "execution" -- was irrelevant to the ideas of genetics he discovered.
Consider Einstein's relativity ideas -- they were philosophical curiosities for most of Einstein's life, not an exploitable commodity, not "executable" at all. Only decades later, after they and Einstein were well-seasoned, did their "execution" make any difference at all.
Consider quantum theories -- conceived in the 1920s, at first they had no practical value at all and even created widespread doubt about their connection with reality. As with relativity, they didn't see anything resembling "execution" until recently.
The history of technology and science flatly contradicts the author's thesis. It's the other way around -- ideas have absolute value, and how one executes them is irrelevant.
That's formally known as "begging the question", i.e. a self-referential circle that uses the argument's thesis in support of the argument. History doesn't care about marketing, it cares about ideas.
We all have benefited enormously from Einstein's ideas, and those of the creators of quantum theory, but none of those people marketed their ideas, or would have considered that important. History doesn't care either. We remember (a) inventions, (b) the inventors, and finally (c) those who exploited the inventions, in that order.