Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the feasibility and implications of studying all areas of physics versus specializing in a specific field. Participants explore the balance between broad knowledge and deep expertise, considering the impact on academic and research opportunities.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Meta-discussion
Main Points Raised
- Some participants suggest that studying every solved problem in physics could provide a broad understanding of the field, though it may not lead to specialization.
- Others argue that specialization is necessary for conducting research on unsolved problems and securing academic positions, asserting that being a generalist may lead to mediocrity.
- A participant expresses the view that focusing on unsolved problems is more valuable than repeatedly solving known problems, emphasizing the importance of innovation in learning.
- Concerns are raised about the practicality of pursuing a broad study approach, with some suggesting it may lead to financial instability and limited career prospects.
- Some participants reference the idea that a broad knowledge base could potentially allow for unique contributions to unsolved problems, though this is seen as challenging without connections and current knowledge.
- There is a mention of the notion that natural ability may play a significant role in becoming a successful mathematician or physicist, with some attributing success to genetic factors.
- Several participants express frustration with the discussion, labeling it as ridiculous and questioning the viability of the proposed approach to learning physics.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants generally disagree on the value of studying everything versus specializing, with multiple competing views on the implications for academic and research success. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the best approach to studying physics.
Contextual Notes
Some participants highlight the limitations of time and the human capacity for learning, suggesting that one cannot feasibly learn everything in depth. There are also references to the challenges faced by students who struggle with traditional learning methods.
And, pure maths? This goes back to the same old argument of what is pure maths... some of the thing's I do, regarding "functional analysis" could be described as pure. However, I prefer to have some application at the end of it. Though this just throws up the question of the fluidity between pure and applied again 
. I think the talk of nature of nurture is an interesting one.>