?

Log in

No account? Create an account
i am not a stuffed tiger.

reading

The article in this month's Wired about Gordon Rugg, his "verifier approach," the debunking of the Voynich manuscript, and the dangers and remedies of overspecialization in science is probably my favorite article of the month. A somewhat represntave paragraph:
... while having lunch with colleague Joanne Hyde, it occurred to Rugg that he could pull together all the tools psychologists use - elicitation techniques, the vast literature on human error, decisionmaking models, formal logic and reasoning - to create a novel form of problem-solving: a scientific method to verify the methods of science. [wired]
It may turn out to be one of those Wired articles that's really exciting, but never comes true. For today though, I was fascinated.

Comments

thanks for posting this ... it fits in with my dilemma of the day, "To finish my PhD, or not to finish my PhD." I strongly resist the push toward extreme specialization -- I think it has a lot of drawbacks (as discussed in the article), but mostly it just doesn't suit my temperment. I'm always excited to hear about people solving cool problems by resisting specialization, stitching together disciplines that don't normally talk to each other.

I was just about ready to write off my PhD, and now I'm back getting excited about it. Hmm, maybe I'm not really all that happy you posted this, because it just makes things complicated again!