I have a strong interest in philosophy. I'm also an avid generalist who believes that much of the jargon of contemporary academics is designed (intentionally or unintentionally) to "keep outsiders out." Though this does some good by setting some kind of bottom limit on those allowed into a specific academic community (only those who understand and use the jargon correctly are allowed in) this modest gain is offset by a tremendous loss in interdisciplinary work, which I believe to be absolutely essential to creating scholarly work with real world relevance.
My largest project so far is to create the List of philosophical topics, and start filling them in. I'm also plaining on trying to recruit some other philosophers to help out.
/To Do -- very out of date
/Neutrality problems
/Faith and science talk
Discussion
Couldn't agree more with you on the contents of the first paragraph. I too see myself as a specialist in generality. I think that the field is bound to grow in the years to come. Seb
- Yes and no. I have academic training in mathematics, geology and civil engineering. Jargon is an unfortunate consequence of the need for precision. For example, one might ask what, exactly, is "normal" about a normal operator... turns out that this has a very precise definition, which is much easier to state than "an operator that commutes with its adjoint". You are quite correct about the barrier to interdisciplinary research, but, frankly, "interdisciplinary" seems most often to be a buzz word inflicted by administrators in funding agencies etc. on proposal writers and faculty applicants. I can assure you, as someone with very strong interdisciplinary skills applying for faculty positions, that it would be far easier to obtain employment had I the "specialty du jour". Let's hope that specialists in generality grow in importance in the years to come...
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)