tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post3795724901427400921..comments2024-03-14T04:16:20.472-07:00Comments on In Socrates' Wake: Resisting InterdisciplinarityMichael Cholbihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02012523929044363216noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-9024901128025196202011-11-29T00:39:07.439-08:002011-11-29T00:39:07.439-08:00"...neuroscientists take for granted that in ..."...neuroscientists take for granted that in studying the brain they are thereby studying the mind." I'm not at all convinced that's in any way "to the good," nor are such folks (much brighter than me) as M.R. Bennett, P.M.S. Hacker, Daniel N. Robinson, Michael S. Pardo, Dennis Patterson, Steven Horst, and Raymond Tallis. <br /><br />One of the fundamental questions any promotion of inter- or cross-disciplinary studies must face is that posed by Nicholas Rescher: “In a complex world, the natural dynamics of the cognitive process exhibits an inherent tropism toward increasing complexity.” While Rescher believes that this may be true for biological evolution, it certainly holds for technological “progress,” and, more to the point, is true for the “progress of knowledge” emblematic of the natural sciences. <br /><br />And I think those holds as well for the social sciences and perhaps even the humanities, for similar if not the same reasons. The irony, or at least the difficulty we therefore face is that our appreciation of this complexity is of a piece with the availability of information, which is growing at a rate analogous to that operative in the world of technology (not dissimilar to the ’geometrical ratio’ of growth Malthus thought, wrongly, applied to population). In Rescher’s words, the <br /><br />“the explosive growth of information of itself countervails against its exploitation for the sake of knowledge-enhancement. The problem of coping with the proliferation of printed material affords a striking example of this phenomenon. One is forced to higher levels of aggregation, compression, and abstraction. [….]<br /><br />And this ongoing refinement in the division of cognitive labor that an information explosion necessitates issues in a literal dis-integration of knowledge. The ‘progress of knowledge’ is marked by an ever-continuing proliferation of ever more restructured specialties [witness dissertation topics!] marked by the unavoidable circumstance that any given specialty cell cannot know exactly what is going on even nest door—let alone at significant remove. Our understanding of matters outside one’s bailiwick is bound to become superficial. At home base one knows the details, nearby one has an understanding of generalities, but at a greater remove one can be no more than an informed amateur.”<br /><br />Rescher illustrates his case with the natural sciences, wherein the “emergence of new disciplines, branches, and specialties is manifest everywhere.” Awareness of this fragmentation give rise to attempts at synthesis and synoptic vision, an endeavor to achieve some overall sense of unity, hence the increasing literature proclaiming the urgency and importance of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. According to Rescher, however, the desire for dialectical or synthetic integration results, in the end, to the production of ever new fragments of disciplinary knowledge! The difficulties we face when presented with “an ever more extensive specialization and division of [intellectual] labor” are real and unavoidable.Patrick S. O'Donnellhttp://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-44796219092891692202011-11-22T13:50:49.469-08:002011-11-22T13:50:49.469-08:00Great point Michael!Great point Michael!Beckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074821953202236848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-70525856274414031872011-11-22T11:20:20.942-08:002011-11-22T11:20:20.942-08:00Becko, these comments remind me that I've long...Becko, these comments remind me that I've long preferred <i>cross-disciplinarity</i> to "interdisciplinarity". I'm strongly on board with the hypothesis that students learning how different disciplines approach the same problem or phenomena can be a remarkable stimulus to learning, but in order for that to happen, the students need to have been schooled in the canons of inquiry that define the disciplines. (It's worth remembering here the etymological connection between 'discipline' in the academic sense and in the more common sense: both concern training or instruction in accordance with rules.) For us philosophers, we spend a great deal of effort trying to help students see both the characteristic marks of a philosophical question (one that is not best addressed by economists, psychologists, or whatever) as well as the methods that define philosophical inquiry. Students who are then exposed to how other disciplines engage the same sorts of questions then learn not only more about the questions, but about the respective disciplines. But again, I think cross-disciplinarity better captures the proper image of disciplines engaging each other, whereas interdisciplinarity may well encourage the <b>undisciplined</b> intellectual vapidity you are worried about.Michael Cholbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02012523929044363216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-42761335232538937122011-11-21T16:54:36.868-08:002011-11-21T16:54:36.868-08:00Ben - thanks, and you are right. Perhaps a starti...Ben - thanks, and you are right. Perhaps a starting point in any useful attempt at interdisciplinarity is to recognize that is impossible without disciplines. Learning about and invoking work from other disciplines should begin (but need not end) in basic epistemic humility: very smart people have been working on these things very hard for a very long time and deserve prima facie respect.<br /><br />JoVE, I appreciate and agree with the point about focusing on methodologies instead of subjects - whether, what and to what degree something is a problem, puzzle, issue, etc. is already a part of a common project with a common set of assumptions.<br /><br />I also agree that the liberal arts are an excellent model of true interdisciplinarity. I would ad that they are a crucial element in resisting the instrumentalization of education and the short-sighted emphasis on skills, utility, and parochial expertise.<br /><br />But the anti-disciplinary movement is part of the dismantling of the intellectual breadth that the liberal arts represent. It is also a part of the move towards demanding that education have the narrowest, most short-term, and most reactive instrumental aims. It is central to the attack on the humanities and most importantly, central in the destruction of higher education as aimed at the education of a person rather than the training of a worker. Its primary aim is to eradicate the professoriate. This is why it has been seized upon so readily by administrations.Beckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074821953202236848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-71019746154417995772011-11-21T10:48:57.106-08:002011-11-21T10:48:57.106-08:00There is an epistemological side to this too, as h...There is an epistemological side to this too, as hinted in the opening part of your post. Disciplines are not distinguished by the topic they focus on (problem, or however you call it) but by how they approach that problem: the questions they ask, the methods they use to investigate the questions, etc.<br /><br />Done well, interdisciplinarity brings greater insight to a problem or issue by bringing these different approaches together, adding another layer to the creation of knowledge. It's hard work and demands expertise and a willingness to contemplate issues one otherwise might not see.<br /><br />I agree though that some of the push for interdisciplinarity is anti-disciplinary, negating the value of those disciplinary approaches and the difficulty of learning that disciplined way of thinking through several years of focused study.<br /><br />Interestingly, the English higher education model has traditionally been very disciplinary with little if any exposure to disciplines outside what North Americans would call the "major". Whereas the liberal arts model dominant in North America has long exposed students to a variety of disciplines, if only briefly.JoVEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16680602039278597976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8070355695530434450.post-61948440949895678142011-11-21T09:49:04.688-08:002011-11-21T09:49:04.688-08:00One way to handle this may be by team-teaching. Wh...One way to handle this may be by team-teaching. When my philosophy classes have touched on areas such as psychology, or quantum physics, I have invited fellow faculty members in to talk to students and answer their questions. I take it that what you are opposed to is 'inter-disciplinary' as in "be an instant expert on any field". By bringing in people from other fields, I hope to make the point that true inter-disciplinary research is a particularly demanding form of teamwork that involves respect for practitioners of other disciplines.Ben Murphyhttp://mailer.fsu.edu/~bmurphy/noreply@blogger.com