Eric CharlesNot a duplicate, at least for me, so I'm really glad you did resend! And, yes, that was exactly what I was looking for. I had no idea that psychology was, at least from the inside, fragmented as you describe.
The unification theme is subtle: upon what "axis" does a multidimensional system unify?I'm reading a wonderful book by Timothy Gowers, a Fields medalist mathematician, who wrote The Princeton Companion to Mathematics. (There is no Nobel prize in mathematics: <a href="http://goo.gl/mj7f" onclick="window.open('http://goo.gl/mj7f');return false;">http://goo.gl/mj7f) He was concerned not about how to unify mathematics, but show what that unified structure was. It's not a "math book" per se, but a series of ever-deeper plunges into the structure and scope of the areas of mathematics, and how they overlap.It is a "companion" in that it claims no authority or completeness as an encyclopedia might. Rather it is a very human guide, with a point of view (opinions) and gaps. It was as much orchestrated by TG as written .. it had a web-site with many commentators, and has several sections of the book written by experts in particular areas.One is struck by the fact that even though there are many fields, this is not considered fragmentation because they all accept certain fundamentals.Psychology is "fragmented" to we novices in that there are many fields. And a "Companion" would certainly be useful for us. But is it fragmented in the sense of having little or no basis upon which psychologists agree?-- OwenLinks:Gowers' home page <a href="http://gowers.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open('http://gowers.wordpress.com/');return false;">http://gowers.wordpress.com/Polymath Project: <a href="http://polymathprojects.org/" onclick="window.open('http://polymathprojects.org/');return false;">http://polymathprojects.org/ (Shows community process in math)
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |