May 28, 2022·edited May 28, 2022Liked by John Carter
I really like the MBTI typology, but It doesn't really assess personality as people usually think. If you're more interested in the latter check the enneagram system. I think you will like it way more.
Let’s talk “medicine,” the most perverse “science” of them all at once denying the obvious truth of holism and completely distegarding the notion of health.
“Fachidiot” is the German term that so aptly describes the kind of sub-sub-discipline academic of the first part of your essay. The hyper specialist in their (tiny) field who is nonetheless an idiot when it comes to general knowledge. “Fachidioten” have been an exponential growth industry, since at least the mid-twentieth century, and accelerated since the 1990s.
What you say about the lip service paid to “interdisciplinarity” also rings true. In the mid 90s I tried to get funding for research that crossed the disciplinary boundaries of history, sociology, medicine and anthropology. The project was bounced around between funding bodies since none of them wanted to accept responsibility for the small chunk considered “their” field. So I started annoying people at conferences by describing my work as “trans disciplinary” around 10 years before the “trans” everything became fashionable. Trans disciplinary in the correct Latin sense, since research _transcended_ the disciplinary boundaries, rather than inter disciplinary which sits _between_ disciplines. Now of course my once proud use of the term trans disciplinary has been tainted by its woke connotations.
John, you may very well have already heard of him or read his stuff, but, if not, you might wish to look up Iain McGilchrist, a neuroscientist and clinical psychiatrist. His take on the role of intuition, the relationship between philosophy and science, is fascinating and addresses many of the issues you have raised. He is both scientifically and culturally literate and comes across as well-balanced and sane (qualities that kind of stand out in academia).
Here is an interview. Readers who wish to pursue a big picture, wholistic take, on science, life and what it is to be human will find McGilchrist very interesting.
You might enjoy the preface, or even the whole of, The Order Of Things.
Not a popular view, perhaps, but MF was as much a polymath I would say as, for example, Paracelsus. Much more entertaining than he is given credit for.
I worked in a university dept of Mathematics for eight years plus. In the same department, same building, same damn corridor the maths folks had no idea who the statistics folks were. Astonishing: every five minutes they are polishing up their web profiles but so incurious about the person alphabetically adjacent it never occurs to them to click on through. That Eureka moment "AH so that's who that fella is that I keep bumping into in the kitchen."
A lot of people are working on producing a new system to replace this failure. From the bottom and not heading up. Here is an old video, not of the start, but still closer to origination point. Its about the designing process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-_PI1ZL_U&t=192s
This really needs to be a significant part of the mainstream conversation between disciplines (and obviously there needs to be more conversations between disciplines). The artist has much to add to the world of scientific discovery, as much as science (primarily digital technology) has added to the world of the arts. The theologian also has valuable contributions beyond his silo, and of course the Renaissance Man, the polymath of today, should play a vital role as synthesizer.
Appreciate your thoughts - of all the Barsoomians I know, you are now my favorite.
This was a very well-written essay articulating one of the most daunting tasks facing humanity today: making sense of the wealth of information we have gathered, and organizing it into a coherent and meaningful narrative.
I particularly enjoyed your references to the etymology of the word science, it was a neat way to demonstrate the problem with modern science today.
I also enjoyed your reference to Godel's theorem, although to be completely technical, what Godel showed is that one can construct a sentence in the language of arithmetic that is true, but undemonstrable within that system, showing that truth and provability are distinct notions. The sentence Godel constructed was something along the lines of "I am unproveable," he then showed that this statement is only proveable within a system of mathematics if and only if its negation is also proveable. In essence, if a sufficiently complex mathematical system is consistent, a sentence like Godel's must exist within the language. But what I want to get at, is that by it's mere unprovability, the statement *is* true to you and I, but a proof of it cannot be deduced. Moreover, this issue can never be resolved, as the inherent consistency of the mathematical system forces a Godel sentence into existence. You can add a Godel sentence into your system into your system as an axiom, but if your system is sufficiently complex, you can always come up with a new one. Mathematically, moving into a new system does not resolve the paradox, like it may when moving from one field of science to another. (It is a subtle difference, but if I am misunderstanding your analogy, feel free to correct me.) Regardless, your analogy worked well for the point that you were trying to make and I think you are fundamentally correct in what you are saying, (I just simply never let go of the opportunity to talk about Godel's theorem as it is an interest of mine).
I also want to point out that in many ways, it is much easier to teach analytical thinking than it is to teach the kind of thinking necessary for synthesis. It is easier to teach someone how to break something down into its parts, than to teach them how to see the interrelations, and I think analytical thinking is overemphasized within our education system, whereas the other kind of thinking is severely undervalued. As a small example, when I learned mathematics at the high school level, everything was presented to me as a series of disconnected and arbitrary formulas, the relations between the concepts we were taught were never explicitly explored or emphasized. This kind of teaching turns relatively bright students into narrow thinkers.
Finding connections between two disconnected things is a kind of forbidden thinking that is rarely acknowledged, and times often discouraged. In an introductory psychology class I took once, we were taught about IQ, about how it was a good measure of intelligence, about how it was highly heritable, and we talked about the numerous twin studies that showed that identical twins reared separately have more similar academic achievements than fraternal twins raised apart. God forbid you make a connection between these facts and the patterns of behaviors of different demographics.
A friend of mine sent me one of your Substack articles, and ever since then, I've been reading them bit by bit. They are very fascinating and well written. I enjoy your writing style. You mentioned in one of your articles that you were having a hard time getting hired in academia as you are a white male, despite being well-accomplished. I am a Canadian university student currently, and I simply wanted to say that I would have loved having a professor like you, over the many incompetent ones I've had, I know that may not be much comfort, but I hope it means something.
In one of my classes, I had a similar insight about the large wealth of knowledge we possess, and the complete lack of synthesis between them, and how that is leading to fragmented, disconnected narratives. I brought this idea up to the professor a bit later, and she seemed rather uninterested in the idea, and so I thought it might not have been as interesting of an idea as I thought. Anyways, it is rather nice to see others talking about it and writing about it, and I think it is why I chose to leave a comment on this particular piece of yours, over the many other excellent ones you have.
I really like the MBTI typology, but It doesn't really assess personality as people usually think. If you're more interested in the latter check the enneagram system. I think you will like it way more.
Let’s talk “medicine,” the most perverse “science” of them all at once denying the obvious truth of holism and completely distegarding the notion of health.
“Fachidiot” is the German term that so aptly describes the kind of sub-sub-discipline academic of the first part of your essay. The hyper specialist in their (tiny) field who is nonetheless an idiot when it comes to general knowledge. “Fachidioten” have been an exponential growth industry, since at least the mid-twentieth century, and accelerated since the 1990s.
What you say about the lip service paid to “interdisciplinarity” also rings true. In the mid 90s I tried to get funding for research that crossed the disciplinary boundaries of history, sociology, medicine and anthropology. The project was bounced around between funding bodies since none of them wanted to accept responsibility for the small chunk considered “their” field. So I started annoying people at conferences by describing my work as “trans disciplinary” around 10 years before the “trans” everything became fashionable. Trans disciplinary in the correct Latin sense, since research _transcended_ the disciplinary boundaries, rather than inter disciplinary which sits _between_ disciplines. Now of course my once proud use of the term trans disciplinary has been tainted by its woke connotations.
I rather love this essay, thank you for writing it. I need to think of a proper response and accolade today.
I say we just retake science and try to make it understood that it can't produce knowledge without philosophy to give context and meaning.
John, you may very well have already heard of him or read his stuff, but, if not, you might wish to look up Iain McGilchrist, a neuroscientist and clinical psychiatrist. His take on the role of intuition, the relationship between philosophy and science, is fascinating and addresses many of the issues you have raised. He is both scientifically and culturally literate and comes across as well-balanced and sane (qualities that kind of stand out in academia).
Here is an interview. Readers who wish to pursue a big picture, wholistic take, on science, life and what it is to be human will find McGilchrist very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U99dQrZdVTg
You might enjoy the preface, or even the whole of, The Order Of Things.
Not a popular view, perhaps, but MF was as much a polymath I would say as, for example, Paracelsus. Much more entertaining than he is given credit for.
https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.orderOfThings.en/
I worked in a university dept of Mathematics for eight years plus. In the same department, same building, same damn corridor the maths folks had no idea who the statistics folks were. Astonishing: every five minutes they are polishing up their web profiles but so incurious about the person alphabetically adjacent it never occurs to them to click on through. That Eureka moment "AH so that's who that fella is that I keep bumping into in the kitchen."
Barzun, Science: the Glorious Entertainment
Pascal, Esprit de geometrie/Esprit de finesse
A lot of people are working on producing a new system to replace this failure. From the bottom and not heading up. Here is an old video, not of the start, but still closer to origination point. Its about the designing process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz-_PI1ZL_U&t=192s
This really needs to be a significant part of the mainstream conversation between disciplines (and obviously there needs to be more conversations between disciplines). The artist has much to add to the world of scientific discovery, as much as science (primarily digital technology) has added to the world of the arts. The theologian also has valuable contributions beyond his silo, and of course the Renaissance Man, the polymath of today, should play a vital role as synthesizer.
Appreciate your thoughts - of all the Barsoomians I know, you are now my favorite.
This was a very well-written essay articulating one of the most daunting tasks facing humanity today: making sense of the wealth of information we have gathered, and organizing it into a coherent and meaningful narrative.
I particularly enjoyed your references to the etymology of the word science, it was a neat way to demonstrate the problem with modern science today.
I also enjoyed your reference to Godel's theorem, although to be completely technical, what Godel showed is that one can construct a sentence in the language of arithmetic that is true, but undemonstrable within that system, showing that truth and provability are distinct notions. The sentence Godel constructed was something along the lines of "I am unproveable," he then showed that this statement is only proveable within a system of mathematics if and only if its negation is also proveable. In essence, if a sufficiently complex mathematical system is consistent, a sentence like Godel's must exist within the language. But what I want to get at, is that by it's mere unprovability, the statement *is* true to you and I, but a proof of it cannot be deduced. Moreover, this issue can never be resolved, as the inherent consistency of the mathematical system forces a Godel sentence into existence. You can add a Godel sentence into your system into your system as an axiom, but if your system is sufficiently complex, you can always come up with a new one. Mathematically, moving into a new system does not resolve the paradox, like it may when moving from one field of science to another. (It is a subtle difference, but if I am misunderstanding your analogy, feel free to correct me.) Regardless, your analogy worked well for the point that you were trying to make and I think you are fundamentally correct in what you are saying, (I just simply never let go of the opportunity to talk about Godel's theorem as it is an interest of mine).
I also want to point out that in many ways, it is much easier to teach analytical thinking than it is to teach the kind of thinking necessary for synthesis. It is easier to teach someone how to break something down into its parts, than to teach them how to see the interrelations, and I think analytical thinking is overemphasized within our education system, whereas the other kind of thinking is severely undervalued. As a small example, when I learned mathematics at the high school level, everything was presented to me as a series of disconnected and arbitrary formulas, the relations between the concepts we were taught were never explicitly explored or emphasized. This kind of teaching turns relatively bright students into narrow thinkers.
Finding connections between two disconnected things is a kind of forbidden thinking that is rarely acknowledged, and times often discouraged. In an introductory psychology class I took once, we were taught about IQ, about how it was a good measure of intelligence, about how it was highly heritable, and we talked about the numerous twin studies that showed that identical twins reared separately have more similar academic achievements than fraternal twins raised apart. God forbid you make a connection between these facts and the patterns of behaviors of different demographics.
A friend of mine sent me one of your Substack articles, and ever since then, I've been reading them bit by bit. They are very fascinating and well written. I enjoy your writing style. You mentioned in one of your articles that you were having a hard time getting hired in academia as you are a white male, despite being well-accomplished. I am a Canadian university student currently, and I simply wanted to say that I would have loved having a professor like you, over the many incompetent ones I've had, I know that may not be much comfort, but I hope it means something.
In one of my classes, I had a similar insight about the large wealth of knowledge we possess, and the complete lack of synthesis between them, and how that is leading to fragmented, disconnected narratives. I brought this idea up to the professor a bit later, and she seemed rather uninterested in the idea, and so I thought it might not have been as interesting of an idea as I thought. Anyways, it is rather nice to see others talking about it and writing about it, and I think it is why I chose to leave a comment on this particular piece of yours, over the many other excellent ones you have.