At first blush, the concept of educating a Polymath may seem oxymoronic. After all, Polymaths must first and foremost be autodidacts. While they may engage in directed learning for specific skill acquisition the choice is inherently subject specific rather than polymathic. In other words, there really isn’t any significant difference between “Web Page Design for Polymaths” and “Web Page Design for Everyone Else.”
For the most part, polymathy is resident in the synthesis, not in the individual courses of study. Consequently, everything we know about higher education is, at best, tangentially applicable to our needs. In our post, The Research Polymath, we stated that Research Polymathy should take place outside of traditional Academia due to the hostility that the various institutions have toward the practice of Polymathy. Additionally, because we are going to need to start from scratch with a pedagogical design, the actual structure of an Academy of a Polymathic Institute will undoubtedly be incompatible in its structure with the traditional colleges and universities.
Because the Polymathic Method is inherently autodidactic, one of the cornerstones of an Academy of a Polymathic Institute will be the certification of autonomously learned material. It will often be the case that those who interact with a Polymath will want an outside assessment of their knowledge and skills. These may include prospective investors, research funding agencies and individuals or potential collaborators. The certification of specific knowledge and skill sets by Polymathic Institute Senior Members will amplify the opportunities to utilize credit received in a traditional university environment and proficiency testing services, such as CLEP to meet the knowledge and skill acquisition requirements of the chosen degree program.
In addition to assisting in assessing course equivalent proficiencies, a Polymathic Institute should certify at the degree level, as well. Specific certifications may include various Masters and Doctoral level categories. We imagine the most widely acquired would be a Masters of Enterprise Polymathy. For many pundits, talkers, bloggers and community designers, a Masters of Social Polymathy may be useful. For Research Polymaths, a PhD of Polymathy may demonstrate to potential constituencies and markets that an advanced level of proficiency in the Polymathic Method has been attained.
The certification process we imagine would involve two or three steps. The first step would be to interact with a certification design consultant who will assist the student in defining the degree certification to be acquired. In many cases, this step can be abbreviated or even completely eliminated by accepting a previously designed certification, such as a Masters in Enterprise Polymathy. However, it would also allow for a ‘design your own degree’ option.
The second step is to obtain evidence of acquisition of a basic knowledge and skill set characteristic of the certification being acquired. This will involve accumulating transcripts from traditional universities already attended, taking CLEP assessments and demonstration of proficiency made directly to the Polymathic Institute or other non-traditional institutions, such as Project Polymath courses.
Third, because a Polymathic Institute will be conferring graduate, rather than baccalaureate, level certification, a thesis will be produced and defended.
An important benefit of attending a first tier University is the network of contacts that are made. While the benefit is informal at a traditional institution of higher education, it will be something more properly formalized at a Polymathic Institute. In other words, the primary value of matriculating at a Polymathic Institute may, in the end, be vested in the alumni association. We have seen in several of our posts that the adage, ‘United we stand, divided we fall’ is central to the ultimate success of Polymathy as a set of viable career options.
Lastly, we assume, especially for the Doctoral level candidates, that a thesis advisor/mentor will be acquired through the Institute. The advisor, as in traditional educational institutions, will suggest approaches, knowledge and skill acquisition requirements and strategies and provide critiques intended to lead to an eventual successful thesis defense.
As we have stated in the past, we are firmly supportive of Project Polymath and their efforts to create a Polymathic University. It appears from their current direction that they can, in the very near future, provide an additional source of training and proficiency assessment for the Polymathic Institute certification candidate. We sincerely hope that the participants in a Polymathic Institute can bring value to Project Polymath, as well.
We will not make a distinction between our Founders’ Circle, the Academy and Alumni association, and execute them all under the general rubric of Polymathica Institute. We do so because the term 'institute' may refer to an institution of learning and research or an institution promoting a cause. In addition to providing content, networks, products and services to a community of refinement and erudition, Polymathica Institute will do both of these.
The structure of the Academy is totally new, or, one may argue, as ancient as the Academy of Plato. As we have stated earlier, there will be a nominal general access charge to enter the Institute and, then, each individual educational process will be negotiated between a student Member and a Senior Member qualified to provide the service. The only direct involvement of the Polymathica Institute in the Academy will be the general oversight of organizational development and the credentialing process to assure that the various credentials conferred maintain the highest level quality and, thereby, reputation.
We expect that the earliest students to matriculate in the Polymathica Academy will be from one of three categories. First will be individuals of means who want to be able to say, “I am a Polymath and I have a piece of paper to prove it.” They should also enjoy the challenge of meeting the requirements of receiving the certification. Second will be young people who, because of their brilliance, have not thrived in traditional educational institutions and wish to pursue a non-traditional polymathic career path more suitable to their intellectual abilities. Third are career changers who realize that they, because of their intellectual abilities, interests and polymathism, are not likely to progress much past lower, technical management levels in traditional, Industrial Age enterprises.
There is, of course, the matter of the cost of the credentialing. This is difficult to determine with precision, because each phase of the process will be individually negotiated and the amount of outside help each student will require will be different. The cost of access to the Polymathica Institute over a two year certification program will be about $1,500. A reasonable cost of proficiency assessment may be another $1,500 - $2,500. CLEP assessments cost $72 ($77 after July 2010) each. Various universities offer college level credit via assessment of 'life experience.' Additionally, we anticipate that some Polymathica Institute Members may be qualified to write and administer a private knowledge acquisition assessment. Custom made tests are likely to be expensive. However, ones that are commonly needed, such as various areas of Statistics, may be relatively inexpensive. We would expect a thesis defense to cost between $1,500 and $5,000 depending upon its complexity. The cost of a mentor/advisor may be another $3,000-$5,000. PhD level thesis defense and mentor/advisor arrangements could be expected to be in the high end of the range with Masters of Enterprise Polymathy could be expected to be in the lower end of the range.
This suggests that a graduate level certification in Polymathy may cost between $5,000 and $15,000. This compares with the average cost of an MBA of $40,000. As to unaccredited educational services, The Singularity University offers a 9-day executive program for $15,000 and a 10 week summer Graduate Studies Program for $25,000. So, we see that the Academy, by its organizational structure, will be able to provide student Members with cost effective educational credentials and Senior Members with a good professional income.
As we have mentioned in a prior post, we strongly encourage individuals of means to join the Polymathica Institute and fund scholarship and polymathic research. While Polymathica is not properly organized to create and administer such programs, its Members can and should create them.
Because every credential is, in a fashion, custom made and, in our opinion, any attempts at obtaining accreditation from a traditional agency would be futile, we can begin the Academy as soon as we have willing students and mentors within the Institute. If you are interested in gaining Polymath certification or providing graduate level proficiency or academic services, contact Fellows@polymathica.com. As soon as there is sufficient interest, we will create a task force to implement the Academy.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
The Before the Flood Hypothesis: An Example of Polymathic Metascience
Before scientists engage in science, they first, either consciously or unconsciously, engage in metascience. In other words, they first ask and answer the question, ‘What is a theoretically interesting question that I can address?’
The paradigm of their subject informs them with regard to what research is likely to be fruitful. In other words, there is a SETI project because it is believed that it might produce meaningful results. There is not a Search for Leprechauns project because it is believed, and we concur, that it wouldn’t produce useful results. The epistemological structure and accepted methodologies informs them as to which questions may be productively addressed through the research process.
While still constrained, the Research Polymath may explore a broader range of questions. Here we address a metascientific line of reasoning that begins with a relatively simple question. Anatomically modern humans have been around for about 150K years. In a period of about 7,500 years at least seven independent instances of the invention of agriculture took place. What are the chances of that?
A very down and dirty calculation would be (150K/7.5K)^6 = 64,000,000:1 against. However, the degrees of freedom should actually be based upon the number of communities of humans that could have invented agriculture, how large they were and how long they were extant. These statistics are not known. Still, any reasonable estimates will yield probabilities greater than 1,000:1 against. In other words, something is missing from the story of the invention of agriculture. Before we proceed with our primary line of reasoning, we will consider a couple of possible explanations that we do not believe are supportable.
The first is what we call the popcorn hypothesis. If you put a number of kernels of popcorn into a pot, nothing happens for quite some time and then, in a relatively short period of time, the kernels pop. This hypothesis suggests that humans require a specific environment for a sustained period of time before they will invent agriculture. The problem with the hypothesis is that it does not explain what the various environments that existed prior to the invention of agriculture have in common and why we should suppose that those environmental factors did not exist at any time prior to those instances.
The second, and most popular among Anthropologists, is the Fertile Crescent hypothesis. In other words, when asked why agriculture was invented, the traditional response has involved discussing the climatic changes that took place at the beginning of the Holocene and how it drove people to invent agriculture. This, however, does not transfer as an explanation to the inventions in the Americas, East Asia or Africa. The environmental conditions within which agriculture were invented in these locations was not substantially different to conditions that existed throughout the upper Pleistocene.
We then move on to the hypothesis that we prefer. That is that agriculture actually was invented in the upper Pleistocene, most likely several times. In fact we will suggest that agriculture and most likely rudimentary civilization was first invented in the middle Pleistocene or about 150K to 200K years ago.
From the DNA recently extracted from a Neanderthal specimen, we now know that the last common ancestor (LCA) of the Neanderthals and modern humans lived about 450K years ago. The inference can be made from this that around that time a population of archaic humans became reproductively isolated and over a long period of isolation slowly evolved into modern humans. After approximately 250K years, mitochondrial Eve lived. The mitochondrial Eve hypothesis has come under attack, however, we believe that it is still approximately valid. About 350K years later, the Y chromosomal Adam lived. There are some very interesting implications to that date, however, we will use it for our purposes at this time.
The existence of a mitochondrial Eve and a Y chromosomal Adam is the result of what Population Geneticists call the Founders’ Effect. Essentially, if a population is small enough and isolated for sufficient time, it will ‘fix’ on a particular genetic configuration simply through random variation. The mathematics of the Founders’ Effect is complex and requires many values that can only be estimated. However, we can draw the conclusion that the population that led to the eventual emergence of modern humans averaged between 10,000 and 20,000.
By the time that the population of modern humans began spilling out into surrounding geographic areas about 100K y.a., they were anatomically different from the archaic humans in a number of ways. They were more gracile. They had a higher skull vault and thinner cranial bones. They had lost the supraorbital ridge, any evidence of an occipital bun and prognathism. It suggests that modern humans evolved in a very benign environment that did not put a premium on a robust conformation.
There is a great big elephant in the corner, however, if we assume that modern humans evolved in a benign environment engaged in hunting gathering. Why did the far more significant environmental changes of a civilized, agricultural life track cause absolutely no anatomical changes? It appears that modern humans came pre-adapted to modern life which would be a violation of what we know about natural selection. Taken in total, we are forced to consider the proposition that the anatomy of modern humans evolved as an adaptation to an agricultural life track.
The traditional Archeologist will bring up the very valid point that, save perhaps for the age of the Sphinx, no credible evidence exists of a pre-Sumerian civilization or agriculture prior to ~11K y.a. To an Archeologist, whose epistemology is predicated upon digging stuff up and then explaining it, this absence of evidence is all that is required to dismiss the hypothesis. However, the preceding points will be compelling to, say, a Physicist or Mathematician who is accustomed to the more theoretical reductio ad absurdum line of reasoning. Still, if no plausible explanation can be found for the absence of evidence, then the correct explanation has not yet been found.
Our hypothesis states that the evidence has been obscured by the Great Flood. We are not referring to some mythological or Biblical flood, but rather to the one that everyone knows about. We are speaking of the one that took place at the end of the last Ice Age from approximately 18K y.a. to 12K y.a. and more specifically what is known as the melt water pulse 1A. Over the total period, 10 million cubic miles of glacial ice melted, moved over the land to the ocean and raised ocean levels a total of 120 meters. Of those totals, nearly 20% occurred during a 200 year period around 13.8K years ago (+/- 800 years) known as the melt water pulse 1A.
Civilization is a coastal or riparian, and to a lesser degree littoral, phenomenon. In other words, if there was any civilization in existence 13.8K y.a. it almost certainly would have experienced a series of profound flooding events. Older civilizations would now be submerged under 100 meters or more of oceans or swept away by flood waters or buried by silt deposited during the flooding events. Furthermore, during this period, the climate was experiencing massive changes. Cold places were becoming warm, arid places were becoming wet and wet places were becoming arid. Species were becoming extinct or changing their ranges. If the nearly global mythologies of great floods have a basis in reality it almost certainly would find its source in this period.
Whatever the level of civilization during the melt water pulse 1A, the populations would have found their homes submerged, swept away or buried. The effectiveness of their food acquisition strategies would have been totally destroyed. In essence, during this time nearly universally humans became refugees. They left their homes and the survivors settled elsewhere to start afresh. Soon after this, agriculture began to crop up everywhere. A careful contemplation of the preceding will lead the Polymath to the conclusion that the mythologies of great civilizations that were destroyed by floods are reasonable.
This hypothesis is clearly polymathic in both the subjects it considers and the epistemological approaches used. A full consideration is even more polymathic. However, the primary point of this post is to ask the question does polymathy inform us differently as to whether ante-diluvian, agricultural civilizations should be considered SETI or leprechauns? The traditional Archeologist or Anthropologist will say the latter and not support expensive undertakings designed to find evidence that they don’t believe will be there. As we see, a more polymathic approach tends to support the proposition that under one hundred meters of ocean, quite reasonably may be found evidence of them.
We will encourage ongoing discussions of both the Before the Flood hypothesis and its relevance to the Polymathic Method.
The paradigm of their subject informs them with regard to what research is likely to be fruitful. In other words, there is a SETI project because it is believed that it might produce meaningful results. There is not a Search for Leprechauns project because it is believed, and we concur, that it wouldn’t produce useful results. The epistemological structure and accepted methodologies informs them as to which questions may be productively addressed through the research process.
While still constrained, the Research Polymath may explore a broader range of questions. Here we address a metascientific line of reasoning that begins with a relatively simple question. Anatomically modern humans have been around for about 150K years. In a period of about 7,500 years at least seven independent instances of the invention of agriculture took place. What are the chances of that?
A very down and dirty calculation would be (150K/7.5K)^6 = 64,000,000:1 against. However, the degrees of freedom should actually be based upon the number of communities of humans that could have invented agriculture, how large they were and how long they were extant. These statistics are not known. Still, any reasonable estimates will yield probabilities greater than 1,000:1 against. In other words, something is missing from the story of the invention of agriculture. Before we proceed with our primary line of reasoning, we will consider a couple of possible explanations that we do not believe are supportable.
The first is what we call the popcorn hypothesis. If you put a number of kernels of popcorn into a pot, nothing happens for quite some time and then, in a relatively short period of time, the kernels pop. This hypothesis suggests that humans require a specific environment for a sustained period of time before they will invent agriculture. The problem with the hypothesis is that it does not explain what the various environments that existed prior to the invention of agriculture have in common and why we should suppose that those environmental factors did not exist at any time prior to those instances.
The second, and most popular among Anthropologists, is the Fertile Crescent hypothesis. In other words, when asked why agriculture was invented, the traditional response has involved discussing the climatic changes that took place at the beginning of the Holocene and how it drove people to invent agriculture. This, however, does not transfer as an explanation to the inventions in the Americas, East Asia or Africa. The environmental conditions within which agriculture were invented in these locations was not substantially different to conditions that existed throughout the upper Pleistocene.
We then move on to the hypothesis that we prefer. That is that agriculture actually was invented in the upper Pleistocene, most likely several times. In fact we will suggest that agriculture and most likely rudimentary civilization was first invented in the middle Pleistocene or about 150K to 200K years ago.
From the DNA recently extracted from a Neanderthal specimen, we now know that the last common ancestor (LCA) of the Neanderthals and modern humans lived about 450K years ago. The inference can be made from this that around that time a population of archaic humans became reproductively isolated and over a long period of isolation slowly evolved into modern humans. After approximately 250K years, mitochondrial Eve lived. The mitochondrial Eve hypothesis has come under attack, however, we believe that it is still approximately valid. About 350K years later, the Y chromosomal Adam lived. There are some very interesting implications to that date, however, we will use it for our purposes at this time.
The existence of a mitochondrial Eve and a Y chromosomal Adam is the result of what Population Geneticists call the Founders’ Effect. Essentially, if a population is small enough and isolated for sufficient time, it will ‘fix’ on a particular genetic configuration simply through random variation. The mathematics of the Founders’ Effect is complex and requires many values that can only be estimated. However, we can draw the conclusion that the population that led to the eventual emergence of modern humans averaged between 10,000 and 20,000.
By the time that the population of modern humans began spilling out into surrounding geographic areas about 100K y.a., they were anatomically different from the archaic humans in a number of ways. They were more gracile. They had a higher skull vault and thinner cranial bones. They had lost the supraorbital ridge, any evidence of an occipital bun and prognathism. It suggests that modern humans evolved in a very benign environment that did not put a premium on a robust conformation.
There is a great big elephant in the corner, however, if we assume that modern humans evolved in a benign environment engaged in hunting gathering. Why did the far more significant environmental changes of a civilized, agricultural life track cause absolutely no anatomical changes? It appears that modern humans came pre-adapted to modern life which would be a violation of what we know about natural selection. Taken in total, we are forced to consider the proposition that the anatomy of modern humans evolved as an adaptation to an agricultural life track.
The traditional Archeologist will bring up the very valid point that, save perhaps for the age of the Sphinx, no credible evidence exists of a pre-Sumerian civilization or agriculture prior to ~11K y.a. To an Archeologist, whose epistemology is predicated upon digging stuff up and then explaining it, this absence of evidence is all that is required to dismiss the hypothesis. However, the preceding points will be compelling to, say, a Physicist or Mathematician who is accustomed to the more theoretical reductio ad absurdum line of reasoning. Still, if no plausible explanation can be found for the absence of evidence, then the correct explanation has not yet been found.
Our hypothesis states that the evidence has been obscured by the Great Flood. We are not referring to some mythological or Biblical flood, but rather to the one that everyone knows about. We are speaking of the one that took place at the end of the last Ice Age from approximately 18K y.a. to 12K y.a. and more specifically what is known as the melt water pulse 1A. Over the total period, 10 million cubic miles of glacial ice melted, moved over the land to the ocean and raised ocean levels a total of 120 meters. Of those totals, nearly 20% occurred during a 200 year period around 13.8K years ago (+/- 800 years) known as the melt water pulse 1A.
Civilization is a coastal or riparian, and to a lesser degree littoral, phenomenon. In other words, if there was any civilization in existence 13.8K y.a. it almost certainly would have experienced a series of profound flooding events. Older civilizations would now be submerged under 100 meters or more of oceans or swept away by flood waters or buried by silt deposited during the flooding events. Furthermore, during this period, the climate was experiencing massive changes. Cold places were becoming warm, arid places were becoming wet and wet places were becoming arid. Species were becoming extinct or changing their ranges. If the nearly global mythologies of great floods have a basis in reality it almost certainly would find its source in this period.
Whatever the level of civilization during the melt water pulse 1A, the populations would have found their homes submerged, swept away or buried. The effectiveness of their food acquisition strategies would have been totally destroyed. In essence, during this time nearly universally humans became refugees. They left their homes and the survivors settled elsewhere to start afresh. Soon after this, agriculture began to crop up everywhere. A careful contemplation of the preceding will lead the Polymath to the conclusion that the mythologies of great civilizations that were destroyed by floods are reasonable.
This hypothesis is clearly polymathic in both the subjects it considers and the epistemological approaches used. A full consideration is even more polymathic. However, the primary point of this post is to ask the question does polymathy inform us differently as to whether ante-diluvian, agricultural civilizations should be considered SETI or leprechauns? The traditional Archeologist or Anthropologist will say the latter and not support expensive undertakings designed to find evidence that they don’t believe will be there. As we see, a more polymathic approach tends to support the proposition that under one hundred meters of ocean, quite reasonably may be found evidence of them.
We will encourage ongoing discussions of both the Before the Flood hypothesis and its relevance to the Polymathic Method.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Polymathic Method and the Research Polymath
As stated in our previous post, approximately one million of our smartest people are not meaningfully participating in the processes of advancing knowledge and the human condition. Their exclusion apparently is due solely to their overly high IQs. As the global Information Age civilization emerges, the social institutions and mechanisms, as occurred in previous societal transformations, will also change. In the case of the Information AGe, these changes will result in an emergence of a class of polymaths who will create and direct much of the traffic flow of information and ideas. In descending order of number of practitioners, we expect that these polymaths will engage in enterprise polymathy, polymathic mentoring, community design, polymathic punditry and research polymathy. Here we will discuss the Polymathic Method that may be used by many of the Research Polymaths.
The first characteristic of the Polymathic Method is that it is question, rather than subject, oriented. Within traditional Academia, a child enters school and is given a basic polymathic grounding in all subjects. However, eventually, like a fluid in a funnel, their focus is progressively squeezed down to a specialty and, if they stay with schooling long enough, a subspecialty. A person may be educated as a Dendrochronologist specializing in Paleoclimatology. After choosing this very narrow field, they will go around looking for a problem or question that fits their area of expertise.
The Research Polymath reverses the order. First, they find an interesting question. Then they make a preliminary determination of the knowledge and skills that will be needed to answer the question. They then, either autodidactically or through collaboration, acquire that knowledge and skills.
The classic example of an accidental Polymath arose when Geologist, Walter Alvarez found an excess of Iridium in the KT boundary. When he asked himself the question, ‘I wonder if an asteroid killed the dinosaurs?’ he launched into one of the most dramatic examples of polymathy in modern times. By the time he was done, he had acquired significant expertise in Cretaceous Biology, Astrophysics, Climatology, Fluid Dynamics, etc. and enlisted the assistance of a broad range of specialists. Furthermore, and more to the point, he completely changed the paradigm of a subject.
Another form of research polymathy is methodology transfer. This is when an accepted methodological approach in one subject is applied to a problem in a different subject. A classic example of this was when Molecular Biologists used electrophoretic technologies to create a 'genetic clock' and began to answer questions in Anthropology.
A third form of research polymathy is epistemological transfer. This is when the epistemological structure of one subject is applied to a subject that typically uses a different epistemological structure. An example of this style of research was Schlieman’s use of literature to lead him to Troy. Ever since this success, people have attempted to use literary references to inform Archeology to no avail. The reason is that his success came from finding Troy. The epistemology of Archeology did not accept his methodology, only his result.
Lastly, research polymathy is free to explore interstitial questions. In other words, most questions are ‘owned’ by a subject. A few fall between the cracks. As interstitial questions have been explored, new interdisciplinary subjects have been invented. A few questions, however, are interesting in general, but not really interesting to any given subject. An example is the question of what humans were doing during the upper Pleistocene. It's not that the question is ignored, but rather that to the Physical Anthropologist and to the Archeologist, the answer seems to be, ‘Not much.” Neither paradigm assumes that if they dig deeper or think about it more, that the answer is likely to change. So they don’t do either.
In many ways, the Research Polymath must be first a metascientist. What we mean by this is that scientific subjects, whether natural or social, have epistemological rules and paradigms that inform them as to what is likely to be the case and what questions are worth pursuing. In other words, there is a SETI project because scientists believe that something might be found. There is no Search for Leprechauns project, because they don’t think that it would be fruitful. They have no evidence of either, however, one fits their paradigm and the other does not. The consideration of what blind spots are created by adherence to a specific paradigm and epistemology is a metascientific activity and an important first step for the Research Polymath.
The historical examples we cite have been cases of accidental polymathy practiced by specialists. Consequently, the connecting fact in the specialty outside their own must be well known. If the excess Iridium informed paleontology about an arcane point, rather than the widely known Cretaceous mass extinction, Alvarez would have known nothing about it and he never would have asked the question and pursued the connection. It is therefore our assertion that, by creating a professional Research Polymath, we will be allowing the interdisciplinary connections to be investigated purposefully and at much a deeper level. We believe that this is likely to surface a broad array of such connections to be explored.
A Research Polymath must acquire a deeper understanding of various subjects. However, that knowledge base is not the same as what is acquired by a practitioner within the field. The Research Polymath will focus on the nature of the current paradigm, the epistemological approaches characteristic of the discipline and where the current paradigm has problems. Only after this knowledge is used to surface an interesting question does the Research Polymath consider what proficiencies should be acquired and when the Polymath should just ask a specialist.
Anyone who is familiar with the three examples we cite is aware that the subject that was informed by the polymathic contribution did not react well. In many cases the ad hominem was appalling. The willingness for the target subject to receive the contributions of what they considered to be an unqualified interloper was non-existent. Consequently, it appears that an effective community of Research Polymaths must be educated and funded outside of the subject specificities of Academia. One approach, obviously, is to do the polymathic research and then write a book about it. Unfortunately, not all polymathic questions are as inherently interesting to the book reading public as what killed the dinosaurs. Our hope is that polymathic enterprises and a generally polymathic larger communities, such as Polymathica, eventually will be able to fund polymathic research.
The Research Polymath must necessarily come from the apex of the polymathic community. Research polymathy requires a breadth of knowledge and skills and an ease in learning that is possessed by only a few. Project Polymath asks the question, ‘One da Vinci changed the world. What could thousands do?’ There are thousands of people alive today who have the intellect of da Vinci. It is unlikely they all have his imagination and creativity. However, the important point is that, right now, nearly all of them are being excluded from professional intellectual inquiry and discourse. If we assiduously pursue research polymathy, while probably not liberating thousands of da Vincis, we will quite possibly usher in a new Renaissance. At a bare minimum we will be significantly increasing the percentage of human potential that is productively engaged.
The first characteristic of the Polymathic Method is that it is question, rather than subject, oriented. Within traditional Academia, a child enters school and is given a basic polymathic grounding in all subjects. However, eventually, like a fluid in a funnel, their focus is progressively squeezed down to a specialty and, if they stay with schooling long enough, a subspecialty. A person may be educated as a Dendrochronologist specializing in Paleoclimatology. After choosing this very narrow field, they will go around looking for a problem or question that fits their area of expertise.
The Research Polymath reverses the order. First, they find an interesting question. Then they make a preliminary determination of the knowledge and skills that will be needed to answer the question. They then, either autodidactically or through collaboration, acquire that knowledge and skills.
The classic example of an accidental Polymath arose when Geologist, Walter Alvarez found an excess of Iridium in the KT boundary. When he asked himself the question, ‘I wonder if an asteroid killed the dinosaurs?’ he launched into one of the most dramatic examples of polymathy in modern times. By the time he was done, he had acquired significant expertise in Cretaceous Biology, Astrophysics, Climatology, Fluid Dynamics, etc. and enlisted the assistance of a broad range of specialists. Furthermore, and more to the point, he completely changed the paradigm of a subject.
Another form of research polymathy is methodology transfer. This is when an accepted methodological approach in one subject is applied to a problem in a different subject. A classic example of this was when Molecular Biologists used electrophoretic technologies to create a 'genetic clock' and began to answer questions in Anthropology.
A third form of research polymathy is epistemological transfer. This is when the epistemological structure of one subject is applied to a subject that typically uses a different epistemological structure. An example of this style of research was Schlieman’s use of literature to lead him to Troy. Ever since this success, people have attempted to use literary references to inform Archeology to no avail. The reason is that his success came from finding Troy. The epistemology of Archeology did not accept his methodology, only his result.
Lastly, research polymathy is free to explore interstitial questions. In other words, most questions are ‘owned’ by a subject. A few fall between the cracks. As interstitial questions have been explored, new interdisciplinary subjects have been invented. A few questions, however, are interesting in general, but not really interesting to any given subject. An example is the question of what humans were doing during the upper Pleistocene. It's not that the question is ignored, but rather that to the Physical Anthropologist and to the Archeologist, the answer seems to be, ‘Not much.” Neither paradigm assumes that if they dig deeper or think about it more, that the answer is likely to change. So they don’t do either.
In many ways, the Research Polymath must be first a metascientist. What we mean by this is that scientific subjects, whether natural or social, have epistemological rules and paradigms that inform them as to what is likely to be the case and what questions are worth pursuing. In other words, there is a SETI project because scientists believe that something might be found. There is no Search for Leprechauns project, because they don’t think that it would be fruitful. They have no evidence of either, however, one fits their paradigm and the other does not. The consideration of what blind spots are created by adherence to a specific paradigm and epistemology is a metascientific activity and an important first step for the Research Polymath.
The historical examples we cite have been cases of accidental polymathy practiced by specialists. Consequently, the connecting fact in the specialty outside their own must be well known. If the excess Iridium informed paleontology about an arcane point, rather than the widely known Cretaceous mass extinction, Alvarez would have known nothing about it and he never would have asked the question and pursued the connection. It is therefore our assertion that, by creating a professional Research Polymath, we will be allowing the interdisciplinary connections to be investigated purposefully and at much a deeper level. We believe that this is likely to surface a broad array of such connections to be explored.
A Research Polymath must acquire a deeper understanding of various subjects. However, that knowledge base is not the same as what is acquired by a practitioner within the field. The Research Polymath will focus on the nature of the current paradigm, the epistemological approaches characteristic of the discipline and where the current paradigm has problems. Only after this knowledge is used to surface an interesting question does the Research Polymath consider what proficiencies should be acquired and when the Polymath should just ask a specialist.
Anyone who is familiar with the three examples we cite is aware that the subject that was informed by the polymathic contribution did not react well. In many cases the ad hominem was appalling. The willingness for the target subject to receive the contributions of what they considered to be an unqualified interloper was non-existent. Consequently, it appears that an effective community of Research Polymaths must be educated and funded outside of the subject specificities of Academia. One approach, obviously, is to do the polymathic research and then write a book about it. Unfortunately, not all polymathic questions are as inherently interesting to the book reading public as what killed the dinosaurs. Our hope is that polymathic enterprises and a generally polymathic larger communities, such as Polymathica, eventually will be able to fund polymathic research.
The Research Polymath must necessarily come from the apex of the polymathic community. Research polymathy requires a breadth of knowledge and skills and an ease in learning that is possessed by only a few. Project Polymath asks the question, ‘One da Vinci changed the world. What could thousands do?’ There are thousands of people alive today who have the intellect of da Vinci. It is unlikely they all have his imagination and creativity. However, the important point is that, right now, nearly all of them are being excluded from professional intellectual inquiry and discourse. If we assiduously pursue research polymathy, while probably not liberating thousands of da Vincis, we will quite possibly usher in a new Renaissance. At a bare minimum we will be significantly increasing the percentage of human potential that is productively engaged.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
The Polymathica Vision
Polymathica is a global community of refinement and erudition. It is small now, but it is growing. The core of our growth strategy is the principle that people attract appropriate content and content attracts appropriate people. It is our belief that the end result, in about two years, will be a website, in many ways similar to Yahoo!, MSN.com, AOL.com, iGoogle, or Go.com, that will provide its approximately 2.5 million subscribers with print, audio and video content, social and professional networks, educational and career opportunities, products and services. This content will be notable in its refinement and erudition and should attract refined, erudite subscribers.
We believe that Polymathica is part of a trend away from ‘one site fits all’ homepages. As Internet delivered audio and video content emerges, about 10% of the Internet population will diverge into values based communities such as the 300,791 subscribers of Gaia.com. About 5% will diverge into intellectually sophisticated communities. These communities will be fuzzy sets. In other words, some subscribers will be completely immersed in the community while other subscribers may only connect with one function. Content, networks, products and services that were created primarily to serve the Polymathica community may find customers elsewhere as well.
We are at the very beginning of the community building process. We are currently growing primarily through member referrals. People may become a ‘Polymathican’ by joining our facebook group, going to Polymathica.com and subscribing to our mailing list, or by following us on this blog. Community growth is greatly assisted by inviting friends or acquaintances who are, in your assessment, inclined toward refinement and erudition. Consistent with the theory that content attracts people and people attract content, when you invite someone to Polymathica, you are assisting in the process of attracting the kind of content, networks, products and services you desire.
We have created, for those who want to provide content, networks, products and services to a refined, erudite community a Polymathica Founders’ Group. If this interests you, simply click on the Founders Group link.
We believe that Polymathica is part of a trend away from ‘one site fits all’ homepages. As Internet delivered audio and video content emerges, about 10% of the Internet population will diverge into values based communities such as the 300,791 subscribers of Gaia.com. About 5% will diverge into intellectually sophisticated communities. These communities will be fuzzy sets. In other words, some subscribers will be completely immersed in the community while other subscribers may only connect with one function. Content, networks, products and services that were created primarily to serve the Polymathica community may find customers elsewhere as well.
We are at the very beginning of the community building process. We are currently growing primarily through member referrals. People may become a ‘Polymathican’ by joining our facebook group, going to Polymathica.com and subscribing to our mailing list, or by following us on this blog. Community growth is greatly assisted by inviting friends or acquaintances who are, in your assessment, inclined toward refinement and erudition. Consistent with the theory that content attracts people and people attract content, when you invite someone to Polymathica, you are assisting in the process of attracting the kind of content, networks, products and services you desire.
We have created, for those who want to provide content, networks, products and services to a refined, erudite community a Polymathica Founders’ Group. If this interests you, simply click on the Founders Group link.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Polymathica Bloggers and Talkers
Based upon research by Hollingworth, Simonton, Dennissen, et al, we conclude that the upper five percent of the population in intellectual and cultural sophistication does not have sufficient access to appropriate news, analysis and commentary. This is a market of approximately 35 million English speakers that, in the Industrial Age, was left substantially underserved. Of these, at least 2.5 million will self-identify as holding the values of refinement and erudition. One of the primary purposes of Polymathica is to create a place similar to The Huffington Post or Townhall.com. However, in our case, rather than being for liberal or conservative news, analysis and commentary, it will provide a broad spectrum of topics presented with refinment and erudition.
Because Polymathica subscribers are erudite, they are also prodigious consumers of information compared to the general population. Consequently, Polymathica, once constructed, can support a broad spectrum of content. By way of example, 2.5 million people creating three page views per day at $.01 per page view will create a little over $27 million of ad revenue per year, which, at Technorati’s estimate of top blogger income of $200,000 per year will support 136 top bloggers. This is sufficient to satisfy the expectations of even the most engaged Polymathica subscriber. However, we believe that Polymathica will be able to support an even larger population of top bloggers.
Bloggers are currently morphing into media personalities and media personalities into bloggers. In the near future, instigated by the emergence of Internet delivery of audio and video content, people who currently are bloggers, columnists, radio talk show hosts, television news personalities, etc. will begin to consider themselves as multimedia personalities. Some will write books. Some will tweet. Some will produce an audio news magazine. Others will produce a video round table discussion. Each will consider the vast and ever expanding array of technologies for delivering their thoughts to the market and choose the ones that work best for them. Rush Limbaugh attempted television and failed. Bill O’Rielly tried radio and failed.
This means, that, because their income is coming from several sources, the number of top bloggers that Polymathica will eventually be able to support is greater than 136. Also, many bloggers who cater to the upper 5% of the population in intellectual and cultural sophistication will find readership in the 90% - 95% of this population that is not a Polymathcia subscriber. We also emphasize, as is the case with the Huffington Post and Townhall.com, that there will be a place for what Technorati refers to as the ‘Citizen Blogger.’ In other words, in the Information Age, people will interact with their community in many ways, one of which will be a blog. It is not done primarily for profit, but rather serves as a super-elaborated personal profile page. Because non-professional bloggers are perfectly capable of making cogent observations, the line between citizen blogger and professional blogger is vague.
The Internet tradition today is that blogs are ad supported and audio commentary is a premium membership feature. The typical 24/7 membership fee is between $30 and $55 per year. As Internet radio becomes the norm, we expect the cost of these premium memberships to go down, probably to about $10 to $15 per year. In this way, people will custom design their news, analysis and commentary access. It may include a video hard news feed, an audio hard news feed, a half dozen audio and video analysis and commentary products, another ten or twelve subscriptions in the Humanities, Science and Technology, Business, Sports, Fashion, Lifestyles, and Spirituality, along with free ad supported print content.
In conclusion, we believe that Polymathica will be of sufficient size to provide its subscribers with a broad spectrum of blogs, audiocasts, videocasts, produced video content, etc. as well as a social architecture that will allow them to share and discuss what they have read, heard, viewed or thought. It won't be easy, but it will be worthwhile for those of us who have found current options sophomoric and superficial. We heartily encourage you to join our facebook page or follow us here.
Because Polymathica subscribers are erudite, they are also prodigious consumers of information compared to the general population. Consequently, Polymathica, once constructed, can support a broad spectrum of content. By way of example, 2.5 million people creating three page views per day at $.01 per page view will create a little over $27 million of ad revenue per year, which, at Technorati’s estimate of top blogger income of $200,000 per year will support 136 top bloggers. This is sufficient to satisfy the expectations of even the most engaged Polymathica subscriber. However, we believe that Polymathica will be able to support an even larger population of top bloggers.
Bloggers are currently morphing into media personalities and media personalities into bloggers. In the near future, instigated by the emergence of Internet delivery of audio and video content, people who currently are bloggers, columnists, radio talk show hosts, television news personalities, etc. will begin to consider themselves as multimedia personalities. Some will write books. Some will tweet. Some will produce an audio news magazine. Others will produce a video round table discussion. Each will consider the vast and ever expanding array of technologies for delivering their thoughts to the market and choose the ones that work best for them. Rush Limbaugh attempted television and failed. Bill O’Rielly tried radio and failed.
This means, that, because their income is coming from several sources, the number of top bloggers that Polymathica will eventually be able to support is greater than 136. Also, many bloggers who cater to the upper 5% of the population in intellectual and cultural sophistication will find readership in the 90% - 95% of this population that is not a Polymathcia subscriber. We also emphasize, as is the case with the Huffington Post and Townhall.com, that there will be a place for what Technorati refers to as the ‘Citizen Blogger.’ In other words, in the Information Age, people will interact with their community in many ways, one of which will be a blog. It is not done primarily for profit, but rather serves as a super-elaborated personal profile page. Because non-professional bloggers are perfectly capable of making cogent observations, the line between citizen blogger and professional blogger is vague.
The Internet tradition today is that blogs are ad supported and audio commentary is a premium membership feature. The typical 24/7 membership fee is between $30 and $55 per year. As Internet radio becomes the norm, we expect the cost of these premium memberships to go down, probably to about $10 to $15 per year. In this way, people will custom design their news, analysis and commentary access. It may include a video hard news feed, an audio hard news feed, a half dozen audio and video analysis and commentary products, another ten or twelve subscriptions in the Humanities, Science and Technology, Business, Sports, Fashion, Lifestyles, and Spirituality, along with free ad supported print content.
In conclusion, we believe that Polymathica will be of sufficient size to provide its subscribers with a broad spectrum of blogs, audiocasts, videocasts, produced video content, etc. as well as a social architecture that will allow them to share and discuss what they have read, heard, viewed or thought. It won't be easy, but it will be worthwhile for those of us who have found current options sophomoric and superficial. We heartily encourage you to join our facebook page or follow us here.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Polymathica TV
Soon, radio and television will move to the Internet. Actually, to a limited degree, it already has. This will be good news for most people, but really great news for polymathic intellectuals. It means that refined, erudite television programming will become economically viable and, therefore, available in large doses, 24/7. It also means that a whole new community of producers of refined, erudite television will emerge. What is astounding is how completely Internet television and specifically Polymathica television will change the economic dynamics of the industry. Today, television programming requires massive audiences in order to survive. USA Network’s The Starter Wife was canceled due to poor ratings despite routinely attracting audiences of 2.5 million. Consequently, when new show concepts are considered, appeal to large demographic audiences is never far from the producers’ thoughts.
Internet television can survive on 100,000 viewers or less. The cost of producing a serviceable one hour program has been decreasing due to improving technologies. Today, costs in the $200K to $300K per episode are not impossible as long as the producers stay away from high cost talent, special effects or sets. At a download fee of two dollars, break even is between 100K and 150K viewers. Television that is produced with the Polymathica audience in mind will surely find secondary markets. Consequently, actual viewers required to sustain a refined, erudite show on Polymathica may be no more than 50K to 75K.
The critical difference between the old and the new is that broadcast, cable and satellite Networks have a limited number of time slots to fill. If, in the experience of the Network, the performance of a show is below the potential for the time slot, they will cancel the show, even if the producers are making a profit. Polymathica Television, however, has no such limitation. Its only concern is that it doesn’t oversupply the market and thereby cause the producers to lose money. If the average Polymathica subscriber acquires ten hours per week of content and the average show requires 100K of viewers per episode, a naïve calculation would conclude that Polymathica can support 2.5 million X 10 / 100K = 250 hours of production per week. Comparisons can become complicated, but this is generally equivalent to saying that Polymathica Television, in pre-Internet terminology, could support about six channels of programming. Another way of looking at it, an economically viable Polymathica show will only require 4% of the subscribers to watch.
It will, however, not work that way. Pareto and entertainment Darwinism will take over and the fittest programs will get more than 4% of the viewers, thereby eliminating some of the marginal ones. To a degree, large, mass audience programming will impinge upon the viewing time of more quintessentially Polymathica programming. The problem is a complex one. However, a back of the envelope monte carlo simulation suggests that the actual number of hours of production per week that can be supported by Polymathica will be about 120. Since all of it is community appropriate, it should be more than sufficient to produce a golden age of erudite television.
Polymathica is creating a community in advance of the content, products and services that will satisfy the appetites of the community. Particularly visionary Members may choose to create the content in advance of the community. Those so interested should consider joining our Founders’ Group. We are behind others. There is a Gaia.com. It does not yet have television, but it will. It already has some of the group specific products and services being advertised. We are behind them, but this is not a race. Gaia.com is good to look at because it is where we should be in six months.
Polymathica is just now embarking on an exciting journey. Simply by clicking the facebook ‘join’ button, subscribing to our blog or visiting Polymathica.com and subscribing to our mailing list, you can join us. It will be a lot of fun and you will meet some wonderful and amazing people.
Internet television can survive on 100,000 viewers or less. The cost of producing a serviceable one hour program has been decreasing due to improving technologies. Today, costs in the $200K to $300K per episode are not impossible as long as the producers stay away from high cost talent, special effects or sets. At a download fee of two dollars, break even is between 100K and 150K viewers. Television that is produced with the Polymathica audience in mind will surely find secondary markets. Consequently, actual viewers required to sustain a refined, erudite show on Polymathica may be no more than 50K to 75K.
The critical difference between the old and the new is that broadcast, cable and satellite Networks have a limited number of time slots to fill. If, in the experience of the Network, the performance of a show is below the potential for the time slot, they will cancel the show, even if the producers are making a profit. Polymathica Television, however, has no such limitation. Its only concern is that it doesn’t oversupply the market and thereby cause the producers to lose money. If the average Polymathica subscriber acquires ten hours per week of content and the average show requires 100K of viewers per episode, a naïve calculation would conclude that Polymathica can support 2.5 million X 10 / 100K = 250 hours of production per week. Comparisons can become complicated, but this is generally equivalent to saying that Polymathica Television, in pre-Internet terminology, could support about six channels of programming. Another way of looking at it, an economically viable Polymathica show will only require 4% of the subscribers to watch.
It will, however, not work that way. Pareto and entertainment Darwinism will take over and the fittest programs will get more than 4% of the viewers, thereby eliminating some of the marginal ones. To a degree, large, mass audience programming will impinge upon the viewing time of more quintessentially Polymathica programming. The problem is a complex one. However, a back of the envelope monte carlo simulation suggests that the actual number of hours of production per week that can be supported by Polymathica will be about 120. Since all of it is community appropriate, it should be more than sufficient to produce a golden age of erudite television.
Polymathica is creating a community in advance of the content, products and services that will satisfy the appetites of the community. Particularly visionary Members may choose to create the content in advance of the community. Those so interested should consider joining our Founders’ Group. We are behind others. There is a Gaia.com. It does not yet have television, but it will. It already has some of the group specific products and services being advertised. We are behind them, but this is not a race. Gaia.com is good to look at because it is where we should be in six months.
Polymathica is just now embarking on an exciting journey. Simply by clicking the facebook ‘join’ button, subscribing to our blog or visiting Polymathica.com and subscribing to our mailing list, you can join us. It will be a lot of fun and you will meet some wonderful and amazing people.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Top Side of the Blogosphere
As we all know, there is a right side of the blogosphere. There is a left side of the blogosphere. Yesterday I asked myself, 'Is there a top side to the blogosphere? And, if not, should there be?'
This led me to think in three dimensions. A sphere, after all, is three dimensional. Someone, somewhere, decided that one of those dimensions, let's call it the x axis, is political, perhaps cultural. What about the y axis? I am going to propose, with the intent that someone might want to argue to the contrary, that it be defined roughly as Jung's Thinking vs. Feeling. However, from a blog topic viewpoint it might be more a matter of a spectrum from hard science to fine arts.
What is the z axis, then? I will propose that it is sophistication. In other words, blogs run from those characterized by sophomoric and populist rants to ones that are a compendium of very carefully crafted, erudite and multi-faceted articles. In other words, the blogosphere has a top and a bottom.
This would suggest the possibility of analytic blogology. A blog could be placed in three dimensional concept space. One could chart the flow of thoughts and ideas as well as links and nodes, etc. After one had charted a large, random sampling of blogs, one could begin a blogographic analysis. In other words, I doubt that the blogosphere is actually spherical and, additionally, I don't think the blogodensity is uniform. Well, all that is, for the most part, a different subject.
This entry is about the top, or most sophisticated portion, of the blogosphere. It exists, though I suspect the blogodensity is low. Certainly Half Sigma, Gene Expression, etc. are very sophisticated. However, and this is my point, the right side and the left side of the blogosphere are very organized. If you are on the right, you can go to Townhall.com. If you are on the left, you can go to DailyKos.com or Huffingtonpost.com. There you will find the top bloggers who agree with your sociopolitical world view. If you turn on Fox News, you will see rightwing bloggers prontificating and proselytizing with ample mention made to their blogs. If you turn on MSNBC, you will get the same, but from the left side. Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, Sean Hannity, et al, all utilize bloggers to create audio content that directs the listener to the print content. Also, Limbaugh, Schultz, Hannity et al have actually gotten into the blogging business themselves with their websites and 24/7 content.
However, if you want to be a denizen of the top side of the blogosphere, there are no such places. Well, there is scienceblogs.com, but that is really for the y-axis not the z-axis and, let's face it, have you heard of it? Perhaps if they became more involved in coop advertising they would be more significant. Or, as I am sure will be the case, when there is a sciencetv.com delivering original programming to all the science enthusiasts across the globe, the necessary recursive synergies will begin to develop.
So, this is one way to look at Polymathica. We are making the first node for the top side of the blogosphere. In other words, here we do not attempt to isolate the liberal or the conservative, the theist or the atheist, the scientific or the artistic. We only isolate those that are refined and erudite. In other words, Polymathica is a refined and erudite global community, not a cause or interest group. Of course, our long term goal will be to provide audio and video content, moving toward cellular and broadband radio and television. Then our pundits, bloggers and conversation instigators can present their thoughts in a multimedia way - just like the left and right side of the blogosphere.
One of the purposes of this topic, beyond putting more flesh on the Polymathica bones, is to start a discussion about loci of the top part of the blogosphere. So, if you know of any blogs at the top of the blogosphere, post them here. It may not be much right now, but at least we will be making a step toward creating a node for the refined, erudite individual.
This led me to think in three dimensions. A sphere, after all, is three dimensional. Someone, somewhere, decided that one of those dimensions, let's call it the x axis, is political, perhaps cultural. What about the y axis? I am going to propose, with the intent that someone might want to argue to the contrary, that it be defined roughly as Jung's Thinking vs. Feeling. However, from a blog topic viewpoint it might be more a matter of a spectrum from hard science to fine arts.
What is the z axis, then? I will propose that it is sophistication. In other words, blogs run from those characterized by sophomoric and populist rants to ones that are a compendium of very carefully crafted, erudite and multi-faceted articles. In other words, the blogosphere has a top and a bottom.
This would suggest the possibility of analytic blogology. A blog could be placed in three dimensional concept space. One could chart the flow of thoughts and ideas as well as links and nodes, etc. After one had charted a large, random sampling of blogs, one could begin a blogographic analysis. In other words, I doubt that the blogosphere is actually spherical and, additionally, I don't think the blogodensity is uniform. Well, all that is, for the most part, a different subject.
This entry is about the top, or most sophisticated portion, of the blogosphere. It exists, though I suspect the blogodensity is low. Certainly Half Sigma, Gene Expression, etc. are very sophisticated. However, and this is my point, the right side and the left side of the blogosphere are very organized. If you are on the right, you can go to Townhall.com. If you are on the left, you can go to DailyKos.com or Huffingtonpost.com. There you will find the top bloggers who agree with your sociopolitical world view. If you turn on Fox News, you will see rightwing bloggers prontificating and proselytizing with ample mention made to their blogs. If you turn on MSNBC, you will get the same, but from the left side. Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, Sean Hannity, et al, all utilize bloggers to create audio content that directs the listener to the print content. Also, Limbaugh, Schultz, Hannity et al have actually gotten into the blogging business themselves with their websites and 24/7 content.
However, if you want to be a denizen of the top side of the blogosphere, there are no such places. Well, there is scienceblogs.com, but that is really for the y-axis not the z-axis and, let's face it, have you heard of it? Perhaps if they became more involved in coop advertising they would be more significant. Or, as I am sure will be the case, when there is a sciencetv.com delivering original programming to all the science enthusiasts across the globe, the necessary recursive synergies will begin to develop.
So, this is one way to look at Polymathica. We are making the first node for the top side of the blogosphere. In other words, here we do not attempt to isolate the liberal or the conservative, the theist or the atheist, the scientific or the artistic. We only isolate those that are refined and erudite. In other words, Polymathica is a refined and erudite global community, not a cause or interest group. Of course, our long term goal will be to provide audio and video content, moving toward cellular and broadband radio and television. Then our pundits, bloggers and conversation instigators can present their thoughts in a multimedia way - just like the left and right side of the blogosphere.
One of the purposes of this topic, beyond putting more flesh on the Polymathica bones, is to start a discussion about loci of the top part of the blogosphere. So, if you know of any blogs at the top of the blogosphere, post them here. It may not be much right now, but at least we will be making a step toward creating a node for the refined, erudite individual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)