Good idea to point this possible confusion. I brought it on myself by saying “white”. :p
Yet I wonder if there isn’t also a confusion in considering the past community more diverse. My point was that at least between the 1600s and the 1800s, many aspects of the scientific community were pushing heavily for similarity of thought.
Very few scientists (especially when compared with the number now)
Virtually all scientist from a handful of very similar backgrounds (noble or rich merchant family in one of a couple of big European countries)
So little actual knowledge that almost everyone was a “Renaissance man” (and so they literally all shared the same sources)
Even if they didn’t have to work on science for a living, they still cared immensely about their reputation and how their work was seen. I mean, Newton spend the end of his life battling over the invention of calculus against Leibniz!
None of this tells us that scientific diversity was less then than now, but in my mind it makes the proposal that it was way better than far less obvious.
All else being equal (which it never is) a scientific community which is 100% people working at modern universities and competing for the same jobs/journals is worse than a community which has some niches where people can work with very different motivations and approaches.
That statement makes a lot of sense. But I feel there is a big confusion if you think this is actually how science happens. There are many journals and conference for many different niches. And almost all countries (especially the US that you take as a measure of everything else) have a tenure mechanism that allows researchers to literally do whatever they want. In France we even have tenure by default. (This doesn’t completely deal with the need to get money and funding to do cool things—going to conferences or hiring PhD students—but it leavens a lot the urgency in them).
So little actual knowledge that almost everyone was a “Renaissance man” (and so they literally all shared the same sources)”
Interesting thought—now everyone has to specialize, there are less people who have different combinations of know in a given discipline. Like i talked about with education, i think its worth thinking more about how our education systems homogenize our mental portfolio of people.
Re: tenure—its a good point and certainly we do have some diversity of scientific niches. Its an open question whether we have enough or not, i think my point more anything is just pointing out that this form of diversity also matters.
Radical proposal: we need scientific monasteries, isolated from the world, with celibate science monks dedicating to growing knowledge above all else :)
Good idea to point this possible confusion. I brought it on myself by saying “white”. :p
Yet I wonder if there isn’t also a confusion in considering the past community more diverse. My point was that at least between the 1600s and the 1800s, many aspects of the scientific community were pushing heavily for similarity of thought.
Very few scientists (especially when compared with the number now)
Virtually all scientist from a handful of very similar backgrounds (noble or rich merchant family in one of a couple of big European countries)
So little actual knowledge that almost everyone was a “Renaissance man” (and so they literally all shared the same sources)
Even if they didn’t have to work on science for a living, they still cared immensely about their reputation and how their work was seen. I mean, Newton spend the end of his life battling over the invention of calculus against Leibniz!
None of this tells us that scientific diversity was less then than now, but in my mind it makes the proposal that it was way better than far less obvious.
That statement makes a lot of sense. But I feel there is a big confusion if you think this is actually how science happens. There are many journals and conference for many different niches. And almost all countries (especially the US that you take as a measure of everything else) have a tenure mechanism that allows researchers to literally do whatever they want. In France we even have tenure by default. (This doesn’t completely deal with the need to get money and funding to do cool things—going to conferences or hiring PhD students—but it leavens a lot the urgency in them).
So little actual knowledge that almost everyone was a “Renaissance man” (and so they literally all shared the same sources)”
Interesting thought—now everyone has to specialize, there are less people who have different combinations of know in a given discipline. Like i talked about with education, i think its worth thinking more about how our education systems homogenize our mental portfolio of people.
Re: tenure—its a good point and certainly we do have some diversity of scientific niches. Its an open question whether we have enough or not, i think my point more anything is just pointing out that this form of diversity also matters.
Radical proposal: we need scientific monasteries, isolated from the world, with celibate science monks dedicating to growing knowledge above all else :)
So we need Anathem? ^^