4 ms·

Darwin's generation was around the last who could have a full understanding of all branches of science. Biologists, Physicists, Geologists, Chemists would commu

Darwin's generation was around the last who could have a full understanding of all branches of science. Biologists, Physicists, Geologists, Chemists would communicate frequenty through letters and meetings Having that cross-discipline expertise at a high level must have been amazing.

nico_h 6y ago
And right now we can have as full an understanding of science at they had without talking to anyone or sifting through private libraries spread through estates across the countries. And we have a century more of understanding and refinements we can explore should we so desire, all at the press of a button. They would only dream of the access to science and people we have now. Though twitter would be a poor medium to replace that era's epistolic cross-polination.
- Angostura 6y ago
  Not really no. A single person can no longer know, grok even the whole of biology, or even the whole of molecular biology. Just having a detailed understanding of all the proteins on a mitchondion is a tall order. Yes, you can look it up. But that's not the same as having an intuitive feel for all of science at the deepest level.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    The parents point is that you can identically reproduce the state of knowing what an 18th century polymath knew, today, just by learning a tiny amount of each subject.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      Still in the mold of https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-technopastoral/ https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-te..., we have accrued tons of "library debt" as we research more things but don't spend commensurately more effort organizing what we've learned. I would not be surprised if this was a huge contributor to the decreasing cost effectiveness of science.
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        Scientists put a lot of effort in to organizing what we know. Biologists and chemists invest heavily in web databases, and professors love to write books. How do you know that not enough effort is being put in to organization?
        Ericson2314 6y ago
        It's best to read the 1st linked article and https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/07/08/the-landscapes-of-digital-scientific-knowledge/ https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/07/08/the-landscapes-of-... But if you want something shorter, ponder this: What percentage of journal article material makes it to textbooks, and how has that changed over time?
        mr_toad 6y ago
        > What percentage of journal article material makes it to textbooks I think that says as much about the quality of journal articles and academic incentives as much as anything.
    - Angostura 6y ago
      And I really disagree.
      - whatshisface 6y ago
        What are you suggesting, that some of the knowledge available in the 18th century has been forgotten?
  - evilduck 6y ago
    Without guidance of some sort, looking it up can be a challenge because you may not know what to search for and vetting new information for quality is its own problem too. A child on the internet today has to contend with deliberate science misinformation that tries very hard to look valid and authoritative (flat earthers, antivaxxers). This stuff is also likely to intersect with entertainment venues like YouTube and plant their ideas first where you then have to unteach the nonsense just to begin. Even as a science literate adult, navigating this with my children is hard because it brings difficult topics to the table well ahead of their age appropriate academic abilities traditionally prepare them for (religious motivations, philosophy, logic, history, etc).
- IggleSniggle 6y ago
  Twitter is a poor substitute, but HN is doing a pretty good job!
troughway 6y ago
I'll collapse some additional subthread commentary into a top-level reply: >Darwin's generation was around the last who could have a full understanding of all branches of science And >Not really no. A single person can no longer know, grok even the whole of biology, or even the whole of molecular biology. have always struck me as odd statements to make. Not to get pedantic, but that's more of a commentary of our classification of knowledge than the kind of tasks they had to deal with. They were presented with the same living beings that we have today (well, those that aren't extinct anyway). No more, no less. They had plenty of chances to get overwhelmed with what was in front of them, regardless of what their contemporary science had figured out already. Put another way, not knowing how things work didn't make their jobs any easier. The way things work doesn't change no matter how many branches of science you throw at it.
- Angostura 6y ago
  > Put another way, not knowing how things work didn't make their jobs any easier. It really really did. You could make major scientific discoveries by walking in a forest for a couple of hours.

nico_h 6y ago

And right now we can have as full an understanding of science at they had without talking to anyone or sifting through private libraries spread through estates across the countries. And we have a century more of understanding and refinements we can explore should we so desire, all at the press of a button. They would only dream of the access to science and people we have now. Though twitter would be a poor medium to replace that era's epistolic cross-polination.

Angostura 6y ago
Not really no. A single person can no longer know, grok even the whole of biology, or even the whole of molecular biology. Just having a detailed understanding of all the proteins on a mitchondion is a tall order. Yes, you can look it up. But that's not the same as having an intuitive feel for all of science at the deepest level.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  The parents point is that you can identically reproduce the state of knowing what an 18th century polymath knew, today, just by learning a tiny amount of each subject.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Still in the mold of https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-technopastoral/ https://hapgood.us/2015/10/17/the-garden-and-the-stream-a-te..., we have accrued tons of "library debt" as we research more things but don't spend commensurately more effort organizing what we've learned. I would not be surprised if this was a huge contributor to the decreasing cost effectiveness of science.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      Scientists put a lot of effort in to organizing what we know. Biologists and chemists invest heavily in web databases, and professors love to write books. How do you know that not enough effort is being put in to organization?
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        It's best to read the 1st linked article and https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/07/08/the-landscapes-of-digital-scientific-knowledge/ https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2020/07/08/the-landscapes-of-... But if you want something shorter, ponder this: What percentage of journal article material makes it to textbooks, and how has that changed over time?
        mr_toad 6y ago
        > What percentage of journal article material makes it to textbooks I think that says as much about the quality of journal articles and academic incentives as much as anything.
  - Angostura 6y ago
    And I really disagree.
    - whatshisface 6y ago
      What are you suggesting, that some of the knowledge available in the 18th century has been forgotten?
- evilduck 6y ago
  Without guidance of some sort, looking it up can be a challenge because you may not know what to search for and vetting new information for quality is its own problem too. A child on the internet today has to contend with deliberate science misinformation that tries very hard to look valid and authoritative (flat earthers, antivaxxers). This stuff is also likely to intersect with entertainment venues like YouTube and plant their ideas first where you then have to unteach the nonsense just to begin. Even as a science literate adult, navigating this with my children is hard because it brings difficult topics to the table well ahead of their age appropriate academic abilities traditionally prepare them for (religious motivations, philosophy, logic, history, etc).
IggleSniggle 6y ago
Twitter is a poor substitute, but HN is doing a pretty good job!

troughway 6y ago

I'll collapse some additional subthread commentary into a top-level reply: >Darwin's generation was around the last who could have a full understanding of all branches of science And >Not really no. A single person can no longer know, grok even the whole of biology, or even the whole of molecular biology. have always struck me as odd statements to make. Not to get pedantic, but that's more of a commentary of our classification of knowledge than the kind of tasks they had to deal with. They were presented with the same living beings that we have today (well, those that aren't extinct anyway). No more, no less. They had plenty of chances to get overwhelmed with what was in front of them, regardless of what their contemporary science had figured out already. Put another way, not knowing how things work didn't make their jobs any easier. The way things work doesn't change no matter how many branches of science you throw at it.

Angostura 6y ago
> Put another way, not knowing how things work didn't make their jobs any easier. It really really did. You could make major scientific discoveries by walking in a forest for a couple of hours.