Much appreciated. However the points have long been variously made and it is unclear who it is expected might take account of them. With whom does the argument have traction? It could be argued that we are in a period comparable with the expansion of the universe -- with insights diminishing in significance to a twinkle, prior to invisibility from wherever one is located in knowledge space. As to mind-size clusters, arguably images may serve that purpose. My take on the matter was: Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science (https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/muversex.php) -- in which I have now cited your piece
It's probably obvious to this crowd that the problem of specialization and the loss of peripheral vision starts with an educational system whose primary goal is to prepares you for a job or to do one better, not to know the world. For that you are mostly on your own and lucky enough to encounter a systems thinker like Ugo (not that you have to agree with all of his conclusions!). But in order to be open to new ideas and ways of thinking you have to know enough to know what you don't know. I think this condition is less common than we would like to believe.
Thank you for a delightful and thought-provoking essay.
Early in my engineering career, I came to wish that I had studied the basics of more subjects instead of the advanced courses. My major was the mechanics of deformable solids (a.k.a. Strength of Materials, badly but entertainingly given by Galileo). But I quickly learned that I learned ≈98% of what I needed in my first semester. When it came to heat transfer, electromagnetics, turbulent fluid flow, etc, ad etc, I had to study… the first semester of the other subject. The big trouble was picking the right subject (if there was one).
Often, a mental image of a subject is adequate, as it was for Michael Faraday.
Thanks for dispatching C.P. Snow. I have helped well over a dozen kids learn math by treating it qualitatively first. You don't need a visa to get from one culture to the other.
Fuller was way off the mark about a number of things, especially about the planet having enough to provide for all if only we would use what we have thoughtfully (except with billions of humans living in a modern industrial civilization), but he did make a number of astute observations. In particular, he was a strong proponent of teaching people to become generalists instead of specialists. This article is a nice intro to his thinking on that topic.
Thxs. Sounds like a development of the final stage of Planck's principle before the Seneca’s cliff:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Much appreciated. However the points have long been variously made and it is unclear who it is expected might take account of them. With whom does the argument have traction? It could be argued that we are in a period comparable with the expansion of the universe -- with insights diminishing in significance to a twinkle, prior to invisibility from wherever one is located in knowledge space. As to mind-size clusters, arguably images may serve that purpose. My take on the matter was: Knowledge Processes Neglected by Science (https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/musings/muversex.php) -- in which I have now cited your piece
It's probably obvious to this crowd that the problem of specialization and the loss of peripheral vision starts with an educational system whose primary goal is to prepares you for a job or to do one better, not to know the world. For that you are mostly on your own and lucky enough to encounter a systems thinker like Ugo (not that you have to agree with all of his conclusions!). But in order to be open to new ideas and ways of thinking you have to know enough to know what you don't know. I think this condition is less common than we would like to believe.
Thank you for a delightful and thought-provoking essay.
Early in my engineering career, I came to wish that I had studied the basics of more subjects instead of the advanced courses. My major was the mechanics of deformable solids (a.k.a. Strength of Materials, badly but entertainingly given by Galileo). But I quickly learned that I learned ≈98% of what I needed in my first semester. When it came to heat transfer, electromagnetics, turbulent fluid flow, etc, ad etc, I had to study… the first semester of the other subject. The big trouble was picking the right subject (if there was one).
Often, a mental image of a subject is adequate, as it was for Michael Faraday.
Thanks for dispatching C.P. Snow. I have helped well over a dozen kids learn math by treating it qualitatively first. You don't need a visa to get from one culture to the other.
Thermodynamics helps understanding religion, bigtime.
Approaching 90 years of age, I find I need to learn new stuff a little at a time. Mind-sized mouthfuls. See the world in a grain of sand.
David Collins
"Thermodynamics helps understanding religion, bigtime."
I have often made a tongue-in-cheek comment about starting The Church of Thermodynamics, but it mostly draws blank stares.
In the meantime, science is falling always deeper....
Did you see this Ugo? Itiner-e: A high-resolution dataset of roads of the Roman Empire | Scientific Data https://share.google/tjgtT5zeG88fXQDVQ
How is it possible to publish such a b.s. ?
Fuller was way off the mark about a number of things, especially about the planet having enough to provide for all if only we would use what we have thoughtfully (except with billions of humans living in a modern industrial civilization), but he did make a number of astute observations. In particular, he was a strong proponent of teaching people to become generalists instead of specialists. This article is a nice intro to his thinking on that topic.
https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/03/08/buckminster-fuller-synergetics/
Thxs. Sounds like a development of the final stage of Planck's principle before the Seneca’s cliff:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
"Natural Philosophy"
;-)