Replying to LO25951
Hello Andrew:
At 09:57 20-01-2001 -0500, ACampnona@aol.com wrote:
> Gould writes, "In reading Schweber's
>detailed account of the moments preceding Darwin's formulation of natural
>selection, I was particularly struck by the absence of deciding influence
>from his own field of biology. The immediate precipitators were a social
>scientist, an economist, and a statistician. If genius has any common
>denominator, I would propose breadth of interest and the ability to
>construct fruitful analogies between fields. In fact, I believe that the
>theory of natural selection should be viewed as an extended analogy
>conscious or unconscious on Darwin's part."
Thank you for your account on Darwin. Over specialization, that is so
commom in science today, is indeed a limitation to inovation, to make any
profound paradigm shifts, and conduct most scientists to only do what Khun
called "normal science" (non criative). That is also true about
technicians and polititions, by the way. See how the old "energy paradigm"
is destroying the ecology of earth.
And I agree with you and Gould that cross polinization betwen different
fields is essencial for the discovery of knew paradigms. And this implies
that each scientis (or researcher, or professional) has a pluri-disciplany
mind set. Can't be solved only with multi-disciplinaire teams. After all,
tacit knowing doesn't cross easily the boundary of speci(es)alization.
Regards
Artur
--"Artur F. Silva" <artsilva@mail.eunet.pt>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.