I find that having deep knowledge in other disciplines throws light on my core intellectual disciplines, history, psychology, etc, making me more aware of limitations of thought. For others, this may not help. For those involved with maths, knowing other disciplines probably has no or little affect on their insight into their core discipline.
What do you think and what is your preference?
with advanced age and cooperation with other academic people it is normal that experience becomes interdisciplinary. In particular psychology and its results of research cover a wide (inter-) disciplinary radius, 150 years earlier empirical psychology was to a big amount physiology, but researchers who worked empirical-experimental, were or became philosophers (or were physicians, or physicists), the discipline, for instance in Germany, was represented by historical figures like Wundt, Fechner, Georg Elias Müler, and also, by pure philosophers, like W. Dlthey (making a difference between explaining nature, but understanding psychological experience). The discipline went - against Diltey - the way of natural science. But all results of experience can have useful effects of enriching that disciplines which were the original sources in the end of 19th century.
with advanced age and cooperation with other academic people it is normal that experience becomes interdisciplinary. In particular psychology and its results of research cover a wide (inter-) disciplinary radius, 150 years earlier empirical psychology was to a big amount physiology, but researchers who worked empirical-experimental, were or became philosophers (or were physicians, or physicists), the discipline, for instance in Germany, was represented by historical figures like Wundt, Fechner, Georg Elias Müler, and also, by pure philosophers, like W. Dlthey (making a difference between explaining nature, but understanding psychological experience). The discipline went - against Diltey - the way of natural science. But all results of experience can have useful effects of enriching that disciplines which were the original sources in the end of 19th century.
Yes. There has been movement from one discipline to another, certainly by people who normally theorise-it is not that odd to move from psychology or psychotherapy into philosophy.
I think of people like Decartes as well who covered considerable intellectual ground. Or engineers like Solzhenitzen who turned to novels. Nabokov the lepidopterologist. But this do not necessarily reflect on thinking in other areas,
but, Peter, what has it taught you by doing so? I've just been doing research on the United Kingdom (10th cent. BCE Israel) and found archaeologists do not seem to know about Drew who made some insightful conclusions about the Iron Age-especially its warfare. They are looking in the dirt for changes, instead of people's minds.
Dear Stanley,
Undoubtedly, the benefits of focusing on your discipline cannot be denied. Sometimes, however, knowing other areas can lay the groundwork for new and original ideas, approaches and discoveries that you may be different from your other colleagues.
Best regards
With the arrival of "robotics" in society, should the best policy for an individual (1) to focus on those disciplines that robotics will be the slowest to enter or (2) to focus on robotics itself as a discipline or career?
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Honestly, Dennis, I can merely make I hope a thoughtful guess, but it seems to me, given the interesting implications on robotics by focusing on that other fields will emerge. It seems to me that the discipline covers or will cover such a wide spectrum that it can supply the needs of the one note thinker and the symphonic thinker.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics