This is either pseudo-mystical nonsense or a simple category error, depending on charitable you care to be.
The charitable interpretation is that the authors think an argument for interdisciplinary research must begin by disparaging one of the parent fields--sort of an academic analog of negging I suppose. But the argument could easily be extended ad absurdum. Physicist don't study X, so they are "missing something", and we needed a new subject X-Physics, but this didn't fix the problem because "mainstream" physicists still don't study X. For any X you want, no matter how silly.
The less charitable assumption is that it's yet another attempt to sneak vitalism back in via complexity theory and emergence.
I do think it's the playbook: accuse science of ignoring or underappreciating something, portray it as being in a crisis that you are rescuing it from by restating familiar facts as if they were revolutionary.
I think Stephen Jay Gould, for as much of a brilliant and gifted writer as he was, and someone who truly rose to the moment to smack down intelligent design and, separately, the bell curve, was nevertheless borderline fraudulent in characterizing punctuated equilibrium as a revolutionary upheaval of Darwinism. I think it's a familiar model. I wouldn't quite say grifter but dangerously close and with all the familiar hallmarks.
Comments
This is either pseudo-mystical nonsense or a simple category error, depending on charitable you care to be.
The charitable interpretation is that the authors think an argument for interdisciplinary research must begin by disparaging one of the parent fields--sort of an academic analog of negging I suppose. But the argument could easily be extended ad absurdum. Physicist don't study X, so they are "missing something", and we needed a new subject X-Physics, but this didn't fix the problem because "mainstream" physicists still don't study X. For any X you want, no matter how silly.
The less charitable assumption is that it's yet another attempt to sneak vitalism back in via complexity theory and emergence.
A more realistic assumption is that the author is a cynical grifter trying to sell his book to gullible fools.
I do think it's the playbook: accuse science of ignoring or underappreciating something, portray it as being in a crisis that you are rescuing it from by restating familiar facts as if they were revolutionary.
I think Stephen Jay Gould, for as much of a brilliant and gifted writer as he was, and someone who truly rose to the moment to smack down intelligent design and, separately, the bell curve, was nevertheless borderline fraudulent in characterizing punctuated equilibrium as a revolutionary upheaval of Darwinism. I think it's a familiar model. I wouldn't quite say grifter but dangerously close and with all the familiar hallmarks.
I'd buy everything but "borderline".
Yup, I don't disagree with anything you are saying here.
:face-palm:
Much better than either of my theories.