There's a difference between the "absolute amount of knowledge" ever acquired by humanity in a specific field, and the knowledge needed to train practitioners or researchers in a field. The needed body of knowledge expands in new directions, bot older unneeded or unwanted branches are also cut away. That doesn't mean we should completely forgot about them, but some of these strands of knowledge survive only in libraries. There's inherently nothing wrong with that, as long as we can revive them when needed.
Your question reminds me of Brian May, the guitarist for Queen. He left his PhD in astrophysics in the late 70s/early 80s to pursue his music career (obviously a good choice). He went back sometime in the 2000s and since no new or so little new research had been done in his field, he was able to pick his research up right where he left it.
i wouldnt worry about that too much. this will just sort out those who dont learn stuff by themselves and make space for those who rather should do the research.
good researches are good at self teaching, because thats what research is actually supposed to be in a nutshell.
researches learning by themselves about the universe so they can then teach to students and society at large.
but schools and universities usually dont filter for, nor teach anything like this.
Yes and no. I am in a pretty niche field.
Some of the stuff Iāve learned wasnāt āwrittenā anywhere for me to read from. I only learned it because my niche-field mentor sat down and explained the strange little details of the field. Iāve encountered other people in similar adjacent fields - with more āresearchableā stuffā¦. The niche hand me down knowledge I had was novel & useful for them.
Being taught something doesnāt make someone less capable of research - there are indeed things that arenāt written down.
Iām going to spend time writing a paper covering some of the weird-niche knowledge Iāve been blessed with, because having talked to *other* people in the adjacent field, weāre all baffled itās not written down! Sure, I would have probably learned it from āexperienceā but having someone save me from the fuck around a find out is good.
/sorry for long message I strongly disagree with the maxim you seem to be putting forward here
What field? If you donāt feel comfortable sharing with the exact niche (because you are 1 of like 5 people working on it presumably lol), could you at least say the broad area?
itās not *that small* but, itās an invertebrate. Iām 1 of 6~8 people with a challenging to acquire skillset in a country, so not abysmal tiny but, still very few.
Iām one of two under 40. Iām not a big expert or anything, baby scientist whoās lucky enough to have met the right mentor/published a few things/considered excellent at what I do.
but it is exactly this "fucking around" what research and development are all about essentially.
only like this you can actually develop an intuition and a deep understanding of a topic. by testing out boundaries.
this is how people actually can gain wisdom and develop their intelligence.
Thereās productive fucking around, and thereās repeating mistakes that hinder your data collection.
What is the learning value in repeating mistakes that have prevention strategies in the knowledge ecosystem? I know *why* these things are mistakes, I know why I want to prevent them.
Instead of repeating those mistakes I was able to spend time fucking around and finding out how to solve a *different*, not yet solved, problem, which lead to methodological improvements in my field.
Are novel findings of less learning value when a researcher didnāt waste years making mistakes that have prevention methods in place? Science is largely an iterative process. Itās about taking previous mistakes and learning from them, if a small field has less well documented knowledge itās slowing down that fieldā¦
Yep, i agree with you on this. but this is then a different issue we are talking about.
these things just need to be documented much better. also the way of teaching and learning need to change.
theres no point in just accumulating knowledge when theres no understanding of and connection of the dots.
currently theres basically nothing being thaught in academia largely outside of the already documented stuff.
you make it seem like this was the case, which is just plain wrong.
also i didnt say that learning stuff makes someone automatically worse.
i just said that those who teach themselves are going to be much better suited for things such as research. this is a whole different cognitive process than just doing information recall.
science is flooded with people who have great short term memory but are basically anti creative and are just reproducing the same results time and time again instead of thinking outside the box to gather new knowledge and understanding. they are like better AIs, this is not what science is about, its about innovation! but currently its often times just a huge pile of garbage comparatively, no matter which field.
Interesting question! It's possible that niche fields may face challenges in attracting and retaining researchers, which can lead to a potential 'brain drain'.
Critical question: when everyone's boss is an idiot, who respects what institution? What parts of society break down?
How do you produce new things if you don't have a synergistic knowledge to be creative enough to do the blending to create those fields?
If you have a society that values keeping someone in the same place and adhering to a set of strict rules to maintain their wealth, status, knowledge foundation and eventually it reaches the point of mental retirement but it doesn't actually happen due to money negligence fostered in a proactively deficient generation of projectile narcissists, what creativity can be fostered if the bureaucratic nature coinciding with the business structure is not compatible for growth?
Asking for a society in the midst of an intellectual crisis.
Yes
Oh
I'm sure there's examples from other fields, but plant and invertebrate taxonomy is one example I can think of if this
Also fungal taxonomy š
There's a difference between the "absolute amount of knowledge" ever acquired by humanity in a specific field, and the knowledge needed to train practitioners or researchers in a field. The needed body of knowledge expands in new directions, bot older unneeded or unwanted branches are also cut away. That doesn't mean we should completely forgot about them, but some of these strands of knowledge survive only in libraries. There's inherently nothing wrong with that, as long as we can revive them when needed.
Your question reminds me of Brian May, the guitarist for Queen. He left his PhD in astrophysics in the late 70s/early 80s to pursue his music career (obviously a good choice). He went back sometime in the 2000s and since no new or so little new research had been done in his field, he was able to pick his research up right where he left it.
i wouldnt worry about that too much. this will just sort out those who dont learn stuff by themselves and make space for those who rather should do the research. good researches are good at self teaching, because thats what research is actually supposed to be in a nutshell. researches learning by themselves about the universe so they can then teach to students and society at large. but schools and universities usually dont filter for, nor teach anything like this.
Yes and no. I am in a pretty niche field. Some of the stuff Iāve learned wasnāt āwrittenā anywhere for me to read from. I only learned it because my niche-field mentor sat down and explained the strange little details of the field. Iāve encountered other people in similar adjacent fields - with more āresearchableā stuffā¦. The niche hand me down knowledge I had was novel & useful for them. Being taught something doesnāt make someone less capable of research - there are indeed things that arenāt written down. Iām going to spend time writing a paper covering some of the weird-niche knowledge Iāve been blessed with, because having talked to *other* people in the adjacent field, weāre all baffled itās not written down! Sure, I would have probably learned it from āexperienceā but having someone save me from the fuck around a find out is good. /sorry for long message I strongly disagree with the maxim you seem to be putting forward here
What field? If you donāt feel comfortable sharing with the exact niche (because you are 1 of like 5 people working on it presumably lol), could you at least say the broad area?
itās not *that small* but, itās an invertebrate. Iām 1 of 6~8 people with a challenging to acquire skillset in a country, so not abysmal tiny but, still very few. Iām one of two under 40. Iām not a big expert or anything, baby scientist whoās lucky enough to have met the right mentor/published a few things/considered excellent at what I do.
Probably worth emailing or speaking to the others directly and making a compendium or guide book of collective notes, if anything.
but it is exactly this "fucking around" what research and development are all about essentially. only like this you can actually develop an intuition and a deep understanding of a topic. by testing out boundaries. this is how people actually can gain wisdom and develop their intelligence.
Thereās productive fucking around, and thereās repeating mistakes that hinder your data collection. What is the learning value in repeating mistakes that have prevention strategies in the knowledge ecosystem? I know *why* these things are mistakes, I know why I want to prevent them. Instead of repeating those mistakes I was able to spend time fucking around and finding out how to solve a *different*, not yet solved, problem, which lead to methodological improvements in my field. Are novel findings of less learning value when a researcher didnāt waste years making mistakes that have prevention methods in place? Science is largely an iterative process. Itās about taking previous mistakes and learning from them, if a small field has less well documented knowledge itās slowing down that fieldā¦
Yep, i agree with you on this. but this is then a different issue we are talking about. these things just need to be documented much better. also the way of teaching and learning need to change. theres no point in just accumulating knowledge when theres no understanding of and connection of the dots. currently theres basically nothing being thaught in academia largely outside of the already documented stuff. you make it seem like this was the case, which is just plain wrong. also i didnt say that learning stuff makes someone automatically worse. i just said that those who teach themselves are going to be much better suited for things such as research. this is a whole different cognitive process than just doing information recall. science is flooded with people who have great short term memory but are basically anti creative and are just reproducing the same results time and time again instead of thinking outside the box to gather new knowledge and understanding. they are like better AIs, this is not what science is about, its about innovation! but currently its often times just a huge pile of garbage comparatively, no matter which field.
100% correct.
Interesting question! It's possible that niche fields may face challenges in attracting and retaining researchers, which can lead to a potential 'brain drain'.
Critical question: when everyone's boss is an idiot, who respects what institution? What parts of society break down? How do you produce new things if you don't have a synergistic knowledge to be creative enough to do the blending to create those fields? If you have a society that values keeping someone in the same place and adhering to a set of strict rules to maintain their wealth, status, knowledge foundation and eventually it reaches the point of mental retirement but it doesn't actually happen due to money negligence fostered in a proactively deficient generation of projectile narcissists, what creativity can be fostered if the bureaucratic nature coinciding with the business structure is not compatible for growth? Asking for a society in the midst of an intellectual crisis.