Why Experts Can’t Create The Outstanding Future We See

Photo by ThisisEngineering RAEng on Unsplash

We at Copiosis use science like a tool. It is not our religion, nor does it guide our work. What guides our work is knowing how the Universe works. Science gets close to knowing. But it still thinks it knows more than it does.

That’s why we don’t need peer reviewers, academics or “experts” validating our work. Or our innovation. Academics and the science crowd don’t get our innovation or our implementation practice. Why would we seek their validation?

Besides, very few “peers” do what we do. Most doing what we’re doing and knowing how it’s done work alongside us. We don’t need them validating us. They are us.

Agreement is friction

Furthermore, needing peer agreement, assent or validation, or experts approving what works, retards human process. Like air brakes on a screaming jet, they foil smooth, fast flow lifting innovation’s wings.

We prefer cutting friction, not adding it. In that way we fly high, where ideas flow and results follow in our wake.

We also don’t want experts telling those doing the work that the work won’t work. What do they know? Most “experts” have no idea how birthing new ideas works. All they’d do is gate keep, prognosticate from their pessimism and slow us down.

We’re not making this up. We’ve experienced “expert” opinion.

When “experts” aren’t

When I first started promoting Copiosis, I thought “expert” endorsements might add value. So I went to my Alma Mater, a private university in Oregon. There I convened four economics professors, each one teaching hundreds of young minds about the future.

What a pity.

Not only did each economist, to a person, poo poo Copiosis, not one of them had anything positive to say about its potential. Even one of my entrepreneurialism professors denied Copiosis’ potential.

So while many claim we should listen to science and consider peer reviews, we know better: it’s not worth our time.

Breakthroughs can’t be peer reviewed

We support what Ecologist Allan Savory says about science and academia. He says new ideas and breakthroughs make peer reviews irrelevant. That’s because peer reviews, by definition, represent crowd thinking. New ideas such as Copiosis can NEVER, EVER BE PEER REVIEWED, he says.

Breakthroughs never come from the center of any profession, Savory says. According to this ecologist, the really good ideas come from the fringe. Fringes that crowds often ignore.

So We know our idea represents brilliant insight. It is fringe. We also know it needs no peer review, nor scientific assent.

Science plays a role in our work where it makes sense. It makes no sense allowing science to decide whether our work holds merit or validity. We already know our work does. We don’t need science nor academia affirming what we already know.

That’s why we ignore those who claim we err in ignoring science. We know better. That’s why we’re succeeding.

Leave a Reply