So we're just going to go back to teaching "facts, just the facts" rather than the synthesis and conclusions provided by the discipline are we?

So our kids have to each individually be smart enough to figure it out for themselves? Maybe like Newton/Einstein/Francis-Crick did perhaps?

Quite frankly, although I enjoy his books, Steven Pinker can have some pretty odious ideas at times. This is one of them.

James - I think you miss the point. He's advocating a way of teaching a General Science Course - not the abolition of teaching of science in separate disciplines.

Moreover he is suggesting that it is best to fit facts into a matrix where knowledge from one discipline is related to another, a matrix synthesising understanding between disciplines.

I think it is a great idea. Much more like the way I personally read about science and fit everything together so I have a handle on everything. Pinker also points out that new disciplines emerge when commonalities between two seemingly disparate fields of knowledge create a new way of looking at the data and reaching new conclusions... creating a better way of understanding the universe.

He is also spot on when he says that a good understanding of science is vital for the working of a modern democracy... otherwise we will regress into a world where people vote for an elite who say they know the answers rather than letting the voters actually vote on the issues.

The Intelligent Design fuss in the US is a case in point - and Americans should be ashamed at the obvious failure of their education system. But in a future where germline genetic engineering may be a choice for parents to make it is important that people understand what they are getting into.

James, if you are an American are you really so proud of your education system that you will defend it from good ideas?

My note on Steven Pinker. I loved his book "Language Instinct" but "How the Mind Works" is a crock of poo. Pinker is always interesting though... so I agree that Pinker's ideas are a mixed bag... But I say that this is a good one.

In my research, I am involved in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemistry (organic and inorganic), physics, biology, medicine, new product dvelopment and legal issues of patents and copyrights - so in a grand view I am a generalist. I support specialization and I also support looking outside of the box.

With much of my work, I have had initial nay-sayers who were "experts" in a myopicly select field discount my research only to become ardent supports once the thoery was validated by physical evidence. Cross-dicipline research is now at the forefront of independent development.

The primary reason is to make sure that a "new development' has many vertical market applications in multiple horizontial venues.

I really appreciated Pinker's thoughts and wish I had more grad and post-grad students who come to me to work on one of our company's projects who have a generalist's overview of the possibilities and potentials, instead of the limiting view that the current drive to find a niche and publish has generated.

thanks for the post, norm