When I grow up, I want to be a specialist in specializations.
Brief historical perspective: As science evolved from the Renaissance on, the first “scientists” were “naturalists” and “generalists.” They had to be. They had little to go on except the writings of Aristotle, the reports of explorers, and the practice of alchemists. No science as we understand science existed until people like Galileo and Francis Bacon started to experiment. Even going into the nineteenth century, many so-called scientists were “naturalists” who pursued whatever knowledge seemed interesting.
But since that time, we have accumulated a treasury of information about biological, chemical, and physical processes. The product of that treasury coupled with a larger human population and more people inquiring about all aspects of existence, is the increase in specializations. Let me burden you with too many examples for comfort: Geological studies now encompass research in physical geology, geomorphology, mineralogy, petrology, economic geology, historical geology, geochemistry, geophysics, geohydrology, mining geology, engineering geology, rock mechanics, geomechanics, metrology, and marine geology. Each of those sub-divisions has its own set of sub-divisions. You can do the same for biology (anatomy, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, bioinformatics, chronobiology, developmental biology, forestry, husbandry, immunology, neuroscience, botany, agronomy, etc.) and chemistry (physical chemistry, organic chemistry, chemical engineering, etc.), physics (classical mechanics, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, electromagnetism, relativity, quantum mechanics, optics, atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, and high energy and particle physics, including nuclear physics), and the so-called soft sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, and their many sub-studies). Did I make the point? Apparently, there’s a specialization for just about every human to pursue without stepping on the toes of other “scientists.”
Here’s a social science article. You judge its level of specialization: “Go Long or Go Often: Influences on Binge Watching Frequency and Duration among College Students.” * Now, I’m not a specialist in whatever field generates an article like that, so I can’t judge it except from the point of view of a layman. However—yes, I know, but how else should I introduce my comment?—I’m driven to be a bit sarcastic when I read one of the conclusions of the study: “individuals are enjoying the content they are watching, which is why they are binge watching for longer periods of time.” Knock me over with a feather! Who would have surmised?
Yes, I want to be a specialist in specializations. If someone lacks a subject for research, I would show up, check out the specialization practiced, and suggest a further specialization. Yeah! That could be my job. Here’s the scenario:
“Professor Conte, I’ve been working on explaining the phenomenon of binge watching because of its importance in human history, but I’m stuck. I’ve looked into the matter, but I don’t feel I’ve exhausted everything in the topic.”
“Have you thought of about doing a reverse study? Why do some people not binge watch? Or, what would happen if binge watchers watch binge watchers binge watching? These are just suggestions off the top of my head. Give me a day to think about your problem; I’m sure I can think of further specialized studies you can conduct. Always keep in mind that the world can never have too many specializations. That’ll be $150 unless you want to retain me, in which case, I’ll provide a sub-idea of a sub-idea per week for a year for $1,500.”
I think I’m going to like this job. I’ll never, at the current rate of developing specializations, run out of work.
*Merrill, Kelly, Jr. and Bridget Rubenking. Social Sciences. January 8, 2019. Online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/1/10 Accessed January 14, 2019.
Brief historical perspective: As science evolved from the Renaissance on, the first “scientists” were “naturalists” and “generalists.” They had to be. They had little to go on except the writings of Aristotle, the reports of explorers, and the practice of alchemists. No science as we understand science existed until people like Galileo and Francis Bacon started to experiment. Even going into the nineteenth century, many so-called scientists were “naturalists” who pursued whatever knowledge seemed interesting.
But since that time, we have accumulated a treasury of information about biological, chemical, and physical processes. The product of that treasury coupled with a larger human population and more people inquiring about all aspects of existence, is the increase in specializations. Let me burden you with too many examples for comfort: Geological studies now encompass research in physical geology, geomorphology, mineralogy, petrology, economic geology, historical geology, geochemistry, geophysics, geohydrology, mining geology, engineering geology, rock mechanics, geomechanics, metrology, and marine geology. Each of those sub-divisions has its own set of sub-divisions. You can do the same for biology (anatomy, physiology, genetics, biochemistry, biophysics, bioinformatics, chronobiology, developmental biology, forestry, husbandry, immunology, neuroscience, botany, agronomy, etc.) and chemistry (physical chemistry, organic chemistry, chemical engineering, etc.), physics (classical mechanics, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, electromagnetism, relativity, quantum mechanics, optics, atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, and high energy and particle physics, including nuclear physics), and the so-called soft sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, and their many sub-studies). Did I make the point? Apparently, there’s a specialization for just about every human to pursue without stepping on the toes of other “scientists.”
Here’s a social science article. You judge its level of specialization: “Go Long or Go Often: Influences on Binge Watching Frequency and Duration among College Students.” * Now, I’m not a specialist in whatever field generates an article like that, so I can’t judge it except from the point of view of a layman. However—yes, I know, but how else should I introduce my comment?—I’m driven to be a bit sarcastic when I read one of the conclusions of the study: “individuals are enjoying the content they are watching, which is why they are binge watching for longer periods of time.” Knock me over with a feather! Who would have surmised?
Yes, I want to be a specialist in specializations. If someone lacks a subject for research, I would show up, check out the specialization practiced, and suggest a further specialization. Yeah! That could be my job. Here’s the scenario:
“Professor Conte, I’ve been working on explaining the phenomenon of binge watching because of its importance in human history, but I’m stuck. I’ve looked into the matter, but I don’t feel I’ve exhausted everything in the topic.”
“Have you thought of about doing a reverse study? Why do some people not binge watch? Or, what would happen if binge watchers watch binge watchers binge watching? These are just suggestions off the top of my head. Give me a day to think about your problem; I’m sure I can think of further specialized studies you can conduct. Always keep in mind that the world can never have too many specializations. That’ll be $150 unless you want to retain me, in which case, I’ll provide a sub-idea of a sub-idea per week for a year for $1,500.”
I think I’m going to like this job. I’ll never, at the current rate of developing specializations, run out of work.
*Merrill, Kelly, Jr. and Bridget Rubenking. Social Sciences. January 8, 2019. Online at https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/1/10 Accessed January 14, 2019.
RSS Feed