Science in Watertight Compartments?

[Sebastianlobo]

Stephen Hawking has said the 21st century will be one of complexity, no doubt arising from the sheer mass of information resulting of the extroardinary development of sciences.

 

The problem, however, seems to be that scientists have comfortably lodged themselves in compartments and in general ignore what goes on in the field next door.

 

If, on the one hand, it is inconceivable that any one person could be dwelling in more than one field of investigation, on the other it is absolutely necessary to establish sound bridges across the rivers of thought through the conceptualization of its main current trends.

 

An Evolutionary Biologist, for example, has to bear in mind the recent developments in Particle Physics, Cosmology , Psychology ( The Language of Thought) and others. Maybe it is time to bring back Metaphysics, which Kant considered the Queen of all sciences, and place her accordingly

[Turtle]

Maybe it is time to bring back Metaphysics, which Kant considered the Queen of all sciences, and place her accordingly

 

Maybe it's just time to teach Inductive Reasoning ; that is, knowledge arrive at by generalization. You know, generalization...reasoning from many specifics, as opposed to Deductive Reasoning.

 

I kant see that it would hurt to try.:cup: :)

[Sebastianlobo]

Maybe it's just time to teach Inductive Reasoning ; that is, knowledge arrive at by generalization. You know, generalization...reasoning from many specifics, as opposed to Deductive Reasoning.

 

I kant see that it would hurt to try.:steering: :cup:

Induction and deduction are proceses or tools used by reasonaing. I am talking about the concepts, that is, the things subjected to such tools.Generalization is a differente hettle of fish, and it usually is very dangerous.SL

[Turtle]

Induction and deduction are proceses or tools used by reasonaing. I am talking about the concepts, that is, the things subjected to such tools.Generalization is a differente hettle of fish, and it usually is very dangerous.SL

 

A contraire! Not only is generalization not usually dangerous, it is the very protection of safety you rely on every day. If you see a bus coming toward you down the way, will you step in its path with an expectation to survive? If no, then it is induction that has swayed your thinking; from some relative few specific examples you have experienced of the result of a person stepping in front of a bus, you have concluded your result will be similar. Even more, you further generalize that any large swift moving mass will have the same result if you get in its path.

Your everday life is rife with such inductive decisions & you deny them at your peril. :cup:

[hallenrm]

The problem, however, seems to be that scientists have comfortably lodged themselves in compartments and in general ignore what goes on in the field next door.

 

If, on the one hand, it is inconceivable that any one person could be dwelling in more than one field of investigation, on the other it is absolutely necessary to establish sound bridges across the rivers of thought through the conceptualization of its main current trends.

 

An Evolutionary Biologist, for example, has to bear in mind the recent developments in Particle Physics, Cosmology , Psychology ( The Language of Thought) and others. Maybe it is time to bring back Metaphysics, which Kant considered the Queen of all sciences, and place her accordingly

 

Real breakthroughs in science are brought about by people who stray away from the well trodden path. I am reminded of the few lines from the poem The road not taken by Robert Frost. it goes like this

 

Two roads diverged in the yellow woods

and I took the one less traveled by

and that has made all the difference.

 

People like you will always be attracted to study what they like, regardless of the present trends in the academia, and will perhaps be responsible to show new ways.

 

:cup:

[Qfwfq]

I kant see that it would hurt to try.

But Can't might disapprove... :)

 

 

:hihi: ;)