Is Science Slowing Down?

On the Bloom-Jones-Reenen-Webb finding that progress stays constant (transistors, crops, total factor productivity) while researcher numbers grow exponentially -- implying each researcher is ~25x less productive than in 1930. Scott's reframe: constant progress under exponentially-rising inputs should be our NULL hypothesis, because the alternative (output scaling with researchers) implies absurdities -- 50% annual GDP growth, immortality by the Baby Boom, 'why isn't Marcus Aurelius immortal god-emperor?', a hundred Shakespeares today, ever-faster marathon records. So only the 'low-hanging fruit' explanation survives (not 'a few geniuses,' not 'bad PhD programs,' which can't explain the Greece/art/sports parallels). Invokes the 'Gods of Straight Lines' (trendlines beat common sense -- cf. Moore's Law), notes AI may extend the trend, and warns 'be careful what you wish for' (Yudkowsky's Law of Mad Science).

Quality 77 · Excellent. Excellent (77). A genuinely original, memorable reframe that recasts the entire science-slowdown debate (constant-progress-under-exponential-inputs as the null), powered by a battery of sharp historical reductios and the evocative 'Gods of Straight Lines.' One of his stronger analytical essays; below the top tier because the central claim is provocative framing more than rigorous proof, and it responds to BJRW.

Claude’s paradigm shift 62 · Notable shift. Notable (62). The null-hypothesis reframing of research productivity is a fresh, non-obvious, generative shift in how to read the slowdown data.

Real-world impact 3 · Moderate. 3 -- moderate. An oft-cited contribution to the progress-studies discourse (the Collison/Nielsen conference; progress studies became a real intellectual movement) -- niche/professional reach.