Hopefully future generations will look upon the cult of scientism as abhorrent as the psychosis of the witch burners (no offense to the obscure punk rock band).
Excellent timing. I just read this chapter a few days ago.
Regarding the impenetrable thicket of technical jargon (and the deadening bureaucratic prose in which its presented; I believe McGilchrist also commented on that) that has become the norm in the scientific literature, I believe substantial improvements could be made in the ability of scientists to adopt a more panoramic view if papers included a 'layman's abstract': a brief description in plain English describing the central results of the paper, with an emphasis on putting the work in its broader context.
More ambitiously, what's needed is a movement in science to discard the impersonal prose of third person passive, and allow back in the light of humor and metaphor. Make scientific writing fun again! Unfortunately most scientists of my acquaintance are terrible writers.
In it's original sense, where researchers are the guardians of science, they are not the guardians of society. That role is reserved for politicians. Unfortunately in this day and age, both are corrupt to the bones.
Rachel Walensky is a soulless demon - those dead eyes sporadically sparking when she speaks of killing or maiming or rendering forever incapacitated children up to the age of 5 with a Frankenstein jab is monstrous. There has to be a special place in hell for things like her - probably at the feet of Satan, licking off the encrusted filth and sucking its cancerous toes, tongue frequently impaled on the talons. But she won't be licking its unwiped bum - that's reserved for Fauci, with Gates, Soros and Biden lined up behind him.
Very good point about the need for generalists. I read somewhere that the essence of creativity is taking ideas from one domain and translating them into another. If a person knows only one subject, he will not have as many creative insights as the person who knows two or more.
For some time, the mantra has been “depth beats breadth”, but now I’m beginning to suspect that this is yet another piece of fake wisdom designed to stifle innovation and keep people in their cubicles.
Hopefully future generations will look upon the cult of scientism as abhorrent as the psychosis of the witch burners (no offense to the obscure punk rock band).
Excellent timing. I just read this chapter a few days ago.
Regarding the impenetrable thicket of technical jargon (and the deadening bureaucratic prose in which its presented; I believe McGilchrist also commented on that) that has become the norm in the scientific literature, I believe substantial improvements could be made in the ability of scientists to adopt a more panoramic view if papers included a 'layman's abstract': a brief description in plain English describing the central results of the paper, with an emphasis on putting the work in its broader context.
More ambitiously, what's needed is a movement in science to discard the impersonal prose of third person passive, and allow back in the light of humor and metaphor. Make scientific writing fun again! Unfortunately most scientists of my acquaintance are terrible writers.
In it's original sense, where researchers are the guardians of science, they are not the guardians of society. That role is reserved for politicians. Unfortunately in this day and age, both are corrupt to the bones.
Rachel Walensky is a soulless demon - those dead eyes sporadically sparking when she speaks of killing or maiming or rendering forever incapacitated children up to the age of 5 with a Frankenstein jab is monstrous. There has to be a special place in hell for things like her - probably at the feet of Satan, licking off the encrusted filth and sucking its cancerous toes, tongue frequently impaled on the talons. But she won't be licking its unwiped bum - that's reserved for Fauci, with Gates, Soros and Biden lined up behind him.
Very good point about the need for generalists. I read somewhere that the essence of creativity is taking ideas from one domain and translating them into another. If a person knows only one subject, he will not have as many creative insights as the person who knows two or more.
For some time, the mantra has been “depth beats breadth”, but now I’m beginning to suspect that this is yet another piece of fake wisdom designed to stifle innovation and keep people in their cubicles.