> Instead, they are people who explain how to use "tools for thought", introducing new taxonomical systems and technologies. To what end?
At a higher level, I see this as natural evolution feeding off all that "desire for new tools" to (in the longer term) create better design for our "Information machines".
It is like this is the Cambrian explosion for the "information level" of life (Whatever that is). I say "let it be".
But (to return to the personal level) We should indeed explicitly police the boundaries between the 2 activities: experimenting (or even playing) with new stuff on one hand, and producing/thinking on a stable healthy (but still evolving) system on the other.
It is confounding the two that is the real problem, not the "tools of thought" in themselves. I'm not saying it is easy either. (I'm guilty as charged)