Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fwh · 06-23-2002, 03:52 PM

Does the accelerating increase in knowledge of science in a pigeon-holed fashion make any of you nervous? There seems to be no unity of knowledge; or, as I heard recently, no "science of sciences" to bring the wide interests of the scientific enterprise into a common focus. The fear being that researchers learn more and more about less and less and miss the chances to build on each others expertise. A sort of "idiocy" eventually evolves where individuals or disciplines lose the ability to communicate in any intelligent manner.

Steven S · 06-23-2002, 04:05 PM

I really don't see the increase of specialization in the sciences as much of a problem for me. I seriously doubt a biologist could help me find, as one example, what quantum chromodynamics predicts the mass of the proton to be. At least in physics what is of more concern to me is a gap between theorists and experimentalists.

Steven S

beausoleil · 06-23-2002, 04:16 PM

I work in a field where astronomers, chemists, physicists and geologists have long had to work closely - biologists are now getting heavily involved too. The scientific ways of thinking allow one to make progress in fields where one isn't a specialist just as they always did. So while some areas are getting increasingly specialised, some of us are still jacks of all trades!

fwh · 06-23-2002, 05:39 PM

The inspiration for my question came about from a recent conversation with practioners in the medical field; tech, nurses, doctors and admin. Wondered if there was a spill over into the broader practice of science.

Thanks for your replies.

elwoodblues · 06-23-2002, 07:23 PM

Specialization (and the fragmentation it brings) is something of a problem, but it's a solution for a much bigger problem. We're just not able to learn enough to be true Reneissance scientists anymore. You can, if you try, dabble in many sciences, but there's no way to be a master in any two or three at once, much less all of them. People on the cutting edge of a single field have enough trouble just keeping up with the developments in their own little corner of science.

I think (hope) that this problem will be solved, at least partially, by advances in cybernetics and human/computer interface. We're gonna need serious help to try to cram several sciences into one skull; at the moment, it's just not physically possible. In 40 or 50 years, though...

seebs · 06-23-2002, 07:41 PM

Don Knuth suggested that everyone pick *two* fields and study them... so they'd be networking between different disciplines.

Friar Bellows · 06-24-2002, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven S:
I seriously doubt a biologist could help me find, as one example, what quantum chromodynamics predicts the mass of the proton to be.

Yes, but that is rather an extreme example!

Quote:

At least in physics what is of more concern to me is a gap between theorists and experimentalists.

Can you elaborate on this? Just curious.

scigirl · 06-27-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fwh:
Does the accelerating increase in knowledge of science in a pigeon-holed fashion make any of you nervous?

The increasing specialization of science wouldn't worry me so much if the general public wasn't so ignorant about it.

scigirl

Feather · 06-27-2002, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Friar Bellows:


Can you elaborate on [the gap between theoretical and experimental physics]? Just curious.

Those damned experimentalists keep bothering us with "data says this" and "data says that" mumbo jumbo. When clearly my eloquent mathematical solution claims otherwise.

Well, not exactly.

I don't really see a gap. For every theorist out there, there is at least one experimentalist in my experience. But I'm just starting graduate school this fall, so I would take that with a grain of salt.

Friar Bellows · 06-27-2002, 12:23 PM

Quote:

But I'm just starting graduate school this fall, so I would take that with a grain of salt.

You mean this?

06-23-2002, 03:52 PM	#1
fwh Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Centralia, Il. Posts: 76	fragmentation of science? Does the accelerating increase in knowledge of science in a pigeon-holed fashion make any of you nervous? There seems to be no unity of knowledge; or, as I heard recently, no "science of sciences" to bring the wide interests of the scientific enterprise into a common focus. The fear being that researchers learn more and more about less and less and miss the chances to build on each others expertise. A sort of "idiocy" eventually evolves where individuals or disciplines lose the ability to communicate in any intelligent manner.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2002, 04:05 PM	#2
Steven S Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 167	I really don't see the increase of specialization in the sciences as much of a problem for me. I seriously doubt a biologist could help me find, as one example, what quantum chromodynamics predicts the mass of the proton to be. At least in physics what is of more concern to me is a gap between theorists and experimentalists. Steven S

06-23-2002, 04:16 PM	#3
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	I work in a field where astronomers, chemists, physicists and geologists have long had to work closely - biologists are now getting heavily involved too. The scientific ways of thinking allow one to make progress in fields where one isn't a specialist just as they always did. So while some areas are getting increasingly specialised, some of us are still jacks of all trades!

06-23-2002, 05:39 PM	#4
fwh Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Centralia, Il. Posts: 76	The inspiration for my question came about from a recent conversation with practioners in the medical field; tech, nurses, doctors and admin. Wondered if there was a spill over into the broader practice of science. Thanks for your replies.

06-23-2002, 07:23 PM	#5
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	Specialization (and the fragmentation it brings) is something of a problem, but it's a solution for a much bigger problem. We're just not able to learn enough to be true Reneissance scientists anymore. You can, if you try, dabble in many sciences, but there's no way to be a master in any two or three at once, much less all of them. People on the cutting edge of a single field have enough trouble just keeping up with the developments in their own little corner of science. I think (hope) that this problem will be solved, at least partially, by advances in cybernetics and human/computer interface. We're gonna need serious help to try to cram several sciences into one skull; at the moment, it's just not physically possible. In 40 or 50 years, though...

06-23-2002, 07:41 PM	#6
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	Don Knuth suggested that everyone pick two fields and study them... so they'd be networking between different disciplines.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.