Petter Holme

… but I’d love to talk science with you for hours, on the shores of Sakhalin or in the bars of Beirut, or in the nearest available seminar room.

First and foremost, James Evans and his colleagues are my greatest role models at the moment, and I can’t think of a better research plan than to follow in their footsteps.

When we learn things by studying or doing research, we perceive understanding as coming to us in step-like a-ha moments.1 I will argue that these moments happen more likely when we recognize (or map our observations to) specific patterns of explanation.

In this blog post, I’ll explore reasons to call science a product of collective intelligence.

This post continues the theme of how quirks of the human psyche limit our advancement of knowledge1—quirks that are very much avoidable if you are aware of them, but if you aren’t, they move the goalposts for scoring that Eureka feeling.

I’ve been a bit disappointed with the debate about the future use of AI in science.

The premise is simple: just six fantastic science books and their spirit animals in the zoo of music. “1” because it feels like I forgot some obvious ones.

Hands up if you also read academic articles from other fields than your own just for fun.

Complexity science in 2024: claiming to be what it has never been, but gladly giving away its Nobel prize.

(The title is as clickbait-y and tongue-in-cheek as ever.