/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7678313]

Why do we teach students to be specialists rather than generalists?

Von Neumann was a generalist. While he made contributions to computer science, mathematics, physics, mathematical statistics, game theory, economics, and computational neuroscience, he never really made a huge impact to any of these fields (other than perhaps computer science). He was a bit of a "jack of all trades". He left his mark on a whole range of disciplines but did so in ways that were not quite so obvious or impactful to society at large.

Einstein, in contrast, was almost a pure specialist. He excelled at physics (with contributions to the field that were far more impactful than von Neumann's), reasonable at mathematics (his friend Grossmann had to teach him the maths to fully appreciate his theory), and poor at almost every other area of science. He made enormous contributions to physics, a little bit to chemistry and mathematics, but next to nil in any other sciences.

So what is so wrong with the von Neumann approach of making small contributions to a range of different fields as opposed to focusing in a single highly specialized field (a la the Einstein approach)?

[Anonymous No.7678318]

>>7678313
I would say that very few people have the intellect/talent/drive to make meaningful contributions to science as specialists and probably even fewer have what it takes to make contributions as a generalist.

[Anonymous No.7678319]

>>7678313

The best work in math has been stuff that spans several areas. Ultra-specialization has cause everyone to loss sight of the big picture.

[Anonymous No.7678322]

>>7678313

"To 40de: "One of the problems of the comparison is that Einstein's contributions were concentrated in a single field and were paradigm changing. Von Neumann has more contributions across different fields, but none where quite paradigm changing to the same extent (e.g., he was not the equivalent of Hilbert in math or Keynes in economics)..."

Neumann, to use a metaphor, may have spread his wings quite far - touching on so many different fields - but it's precisely that extension that diminishes his influence. Think a jack of all trades but a master of none. That's obviously an imprecise metaphor because he was a master of all that he set his mind to, but my point is he didn't truly dominate all fields equally, b/c treaded ground so fleetingly. He has a little influence in economics, some in mathematics and mathematical physics, and so forth (his influence in computer science is his most substantial), but even economists don't agree on JVN's influence on the field."

Link: http://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/von-neumann-or-einstein/page/7

[Anonymous No.7678338]

Because the modern society does not need a million "big picture" guys thinking they're going to find the answer to everything and accomplishing nothing. But society can use a million leg work scientists fussing over the minutia of the loose threads that scientists before them left.