Over-specialisation eventually retreats into defending what one has learnt rather than making new connections http://aeonm.ag/17Bq77v
-
-
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag It is idiocy. I have been trying to say this for a long while. But if you think you are crossing domains you still don't get it!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag Nature doesn't have domains. It's just human map-making, classification and indexing; the boundaries are entirely artificial.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag I disagree with the comments saying specialism is required in academia because of a brutal market and exp. increase in science.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag Rate of innovation is decreasing: http://accelerating.org/articles/InnovationHuebnerTFSC2005.pdf … and also Science is being gamed: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20131027,0,1228881.column#axzz2jhqyCXa2 …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag A wildly-different knowledge tree might find it difficult to cross-pollinate with others in a homogenous knowledge forest.1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag So it's certainly risky to think too differently, but inbreeding science isn't likely to create beautiful children.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag Even if polymath thinking is risky, it's probably worth investing a little time into it due to the convex payoffs.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @nouswaves
.
@aeonmag Not to mention the general health of the knowledge forest... (Sorry to create such weird analogies here...)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@sebinsua Not at all, I think our author would quite agree!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.