As empirical acolyte Steve Connor shows in our update to a former article, new groundbreaking work in science proves that "Einstein was right when he thought he was wrong", proving that he was right about what he thought wasn't right, and so was wrong about what he didn't think was right at all. What was he wrong (right) about? He was (in)correct regarding whether "you can be in two places at once" - Conner shows that he was in fact right (making him actually wrong) thanks to a new device with which - according to science writer Adrian Cho - they "still haven't achieved a two-places-at-once state". As Conner makes clear, Einstein never could have guessed that he would be right (wrong) that it would ever be possible to (not be able to) exist in two places at once, but time has shown that the opposite of what he didn't (not) think has actually turned out to be true (false). A perfect instance of science journalism.
In a world that is rapidly changing—where new technologies, environmental crises, and societal challenges continuously shape our future—how we think about science, knowledge, and creativity must evolve. Enter radical science : a groundbreaking approach that blends scientific inquiry, artistic expression, and technological innovation to solve global problems in bold, interdisciplinary ways. But what exactly is radical science, and how does it differ from traditional science? This article explores the concept of radical science and why it’s becoming a crucial framework for understanding the complexities of our modern world. What is Radical Science At its core, radical science represents a departure from traditional scientific methods that typically segregate art, technology, and science into separate spheres. Radical science integrates these disciplines, encouraging collaboration between scientists, artists, engineers, and philosophers. It challenges the conventional belief that scientif...