InnovNation

From the people at D8:

Scottish people have a long history of innovation. You name it, we invented it. Yes, everything (almost). Admittedly, it’s been a while since we gave the world anything that could support such outlandish claims of talent (Kenny Dalglish excepted) but the Scottish Institute for Enterprise has its fair share of modern day success stories among the new student businesses and social enterprises it helps, including the genuinely innovative Pufferfish …

WIRED from Pufferfish on Vimeo.

Comments (0)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Peter Curran says:

    Highly intelligent people become credulous at exactly the point that ordinary people become sceptical. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, a medical doctor and the inventor of the most logical character in fiction, Sherlock Holmes, swallowed whole the Cottingley Fairies story and fake photographs, Trevor Roper was taken in by the Hitler diaries, and the Financial Times editorial and features team, hard-headed money men with facts as their stock-in-trade, were duped by a story from an American ‘scholar’ claiming to have discovered new Dead Sea scrolls that called various biblical accounts into question.

    They made the elementary error of not saying the archaleologist’s name aloud, a technique known to all newspaper editors before running submissions on any April 1st. The man who submitted this story was called Batson D. Sealing, which caused some rather red – or should I say pink – faces at the FT when they eventually and belatedly uttered it.

  2. Vronsky says:

    “Highly intelligent people become credulous at exactly the point that ordinary people become sceptical. ”

    What does that mean? Are highly intelligent people more likely to be wrong than ordinary people? Are those categories non-intersecting – ordinary people are not highly intelligent? Do you define highly intelligent people as those who are more commonly wrong than those who are not highly intelligent? Or are they only uniformly wrong beyond some mystical singularity (‘exactly the point’) at which ordinary people become always right? If so, it would be good to hear some definition of this singularity – clearly it would be useful in helping us decide to who listen to, and when.

    Not wishing to complicate your task, but here is >a longish list of highly intelligent people who were right about something when everyone else (including, perplexingly, the ‘ordinary’) were wrong.

Keep our Journalism Independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address to subscribe for free here and receive Bella direct to your inbox.

 
Bella Caledonia