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.
Yes exactly - like it used to be! Read early scientific papers (when the scientists were doing it out of passion not profession) and you can feel the excitement as well as actually understand what they were discovering.
Here I am 'doing' problem solving science and getting no career boost or financial gain. Well, I have no credentials anyway, and other than the odd comment, not many like this idea of how to grow fresh healthy food from the same spot year over year for as long as this can be preformed, either! Hahahaha!
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.
I'd say depth begets depth albeit in an increasingly narrow hole. Breadth, like the broader perspective of the right hemisphere, opens up a panorama of creativity.
Nevertheless I think you can have both - a depth in an area or two, yet always returning to the vista on the mountain top for perspective. A molecular biologist, for example, might be an avid violin player, be knowledgeable about the arts, and a broad understanding of history and politics. Or a particle physicist who is also passionate about bike riding, heath, and the general state of individual and global health, yet not sucked into any one dogmatic view.
I know too many in the mental health space who's entire life is completely consumed with their area of expertise that they have little time for any other aspect of life, let alone reading about broader topics related to health and wellbeing (bar whatever they need to do to maintain continuing education points for registration), and completely ignorant, or ignorantly dogmatic about sociopolitical issues.
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.
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.
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.
Yes exactly - like it used to be! Read early scientific papers (when the scientists were doing it out of passion not profession) and you can feel the excitement as well as actually understand what they were discovering.
Here I am 'doing' problem solving science and getting no career boost or financial gain. Well, I have no credentials anyway, and other than the odd comment, not many like this idea of how to grow fresh healthy food from the same spot year over year for as long as this can be preformed, either! Hahahaha!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDCRYtmkDsX-6Er47dETKwdAhVf1r0L3N
Rick your day is fast approaching! Soon masses of people will want to know how to grow their own food.
I for one am appreciating your YouTube channel.
I'm having to wait patiently. These people will have to starve to wake up methinks.
You will, but it's coming. Looks like another European war brewing, maybe global, and self-sufficiency will suddenly be all the rage. ;-)
Not because they are thoughtful, only because they are hungry! Hahahaha!
Your a good one Winston, I'll have to watch for your newsletter posts.
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.
I'd say depth begets depth albeit in an increasingly narrow hole. Breadth, like the broader perspective of the right hemisphere, opens up a panorama of creativity.
Nevertheless I think you can have both - a depth in an area or two, yet always returning to the vista on the mountain top for perspective. A molecular biologist, for example, might be an avid violin player, be knowledgeable about the arts, and a broad understanding of history and politics. Or a particle physicist who is also passionate about bike riding, heath, and the general state of individual and global health, yet not sucked into any one dogmatic view.
I know too many in the mental health space who's entire life is completely consumed with their area of expertise that they have little time for any other aspect of life, let alone reading about broader topics related to health and wellbeing (bar whatever they need to do to maintain continuing education points for registration), and completely ignorant, or ignorantly dogmatic about sociopolitical issues.
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.
Vivid indeed humdeedee - now I have to get that bum licking image out of my head lol.
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.