Lately, I have given a good bit of thought as to how I research new topics. There are two related concepts in philosophy, Holism and Reductionism, that play together in how I approach research. Holism was put forth by Aristotle as “The whole is more than the sum of its parts.” The concept of reductionism is defined as the opposite: “The whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts.” Which is the natural way for me to approach researching new topics?
When learning something new, I have a tendency to split my efforts into multiple strata. First, I get a broad overview of the topic and try to just get a feel for the basics. At this point, I am not concerned with doing calculations or working any types of problems. I just was to get a rough feel for the topic. As I study, I make a note of topics that interest me further. Once I feel like I have a good overview, I pick the most interesting topic and dig a deeper into it. This is the point where I start to try to apply what I am learning, either by working problems or writing programs. However, I never really go too deep on any one topic—I tend to bounce around all of the topics that interest me, chipping away at the terminology bit by bit, working a little more, until I feel like I have a good enough understanding of the topic to satisfy my interest.
So, where do I fall along the holism—reductionism line? Well, I would say that, in general, I take a more holistic view of research. To me, the whole is more important than the individual parts. I only want to know enough of the parts so that I feel like I have a good enough understanding of the whole. I think that plays into my Jack of All Trades syndrome. If I can grasp the Big Picture of a topic, it is infinitely more valuable to me than if I become an expert in all of the little pieces.
Popularity: 44% [?]
