I think it's in fact very true and there is a very good reason what that is the case.

Most expert know more and more about less and less because in order to understand something you need to dig ever deeper to understand the specifics.

What is needs is expert generalists that are able to understand several fields well enough to see where knowledge from one area can lead to understanding in others and vice versa.

Expert generalists are precisely the thing that's missing, especially with how younger scientists are trained. It's harder to fund an expert generalist.

Freeman Dyson is a great example because at 89 he published the solution to the prisoner's dilemma, decades later than the original theoretical physics work.

The Ph.D. process weeds out anyone who has any desire to become an expert generalist.

> the solution to the PD

Dyson truly proposes a great solution lying in PD. That is a huge oversight for game theorists when they let an outsider do that.

However, it's not the ultimate solution. It's an extremely interesting aspect (a strategy, a style of play) of the PD that game theorists somehow have never seen and articulated in maths.

For the evolutionary fitness of the extortioner solution that Dyson discovers:

Evolution of extortion in Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma games http://www.pnas.org/content/110/17/6913.abstract

Exactly!

You don't really understand a field without digging deep. A great example is how much students are willing to trust surveys before and after they do a large one. Another is mice running mazes, the numbers may look nice in theory, but they can hide a lot of problems.

I totally agree but the question is what constitutes a field.

I once read about a whole series of areas where solutions to issues in one field happened from understanding from understanding another field. Unfortunately ver few people span over multiple fields and can call themselves experts.

So the questions is whether we could spread out the expertise to more in between studies and letting go of literature as the only way to collect knowledge might be a great first step.

Honestly, University's or other places where people in diverse fields collaborate seem like the solution to this problem. Because, there are a lot of fields out there and 2^N sucks, but conversations take less effort than a deep dive. Bell labs comes to mind as a private sector version of this.

The problem is that this collaboration does not happen because people are mostly "trapped" within their own field. My point is simply to remove the idea of literature as the container of knowledge as if knowledge is like literature (i.e. once written saved as a piece of knowledge)

Or put another way.

Instead of modeling knowledge after the way our brain best deal with structure we should leave the structuring to the machines and start approaching it more like an organism that can be explored. I think we are bound to see something along those lines soon.

Maybe it worked for him; I have found that people who tend to do the most important work in my field are dedicated and believe in their work, instead of perpetually looking for something new but unimportant to publish.