The language Joe Moran uses in introductory to Interdisciplinarity chapter is vague and frivolous, first exemplified in his opening paragraph when he calls “how we organize knowledge into disciplines…stale, irrelevant, inflexible, or exclusory” (Moran 1). The words “irrelevant” and “inflexible” alone would have easily made Moran’s point. Moran, later in the introduction, excuses himself for his use of language by accusing the English language itself for not having words that are accurate enough to describe what he means by “interdisciplinarity” (14). But I am pretty sure that the real reason he finds it so difficult to explain himself is because in this day and age true interdisciplinarity is impossible.
We have too much information available for us not to classify knowledge into different disciplines. It used to be that science, economics, and philosophy were all studied under the umbrella term of “philosophy.” But once more information, theories, and discussions became about, this true interdisciplinarity became an old frame, and new categories evolved. The development of the scientific method eventually established a defined line between what is and is not science, thus pushing out other disciplines all together . The conversations in the individual discipline are too specific to be combined. Moran himself is guilty of this because the introduction to his book reads as if the target audience are members of his own discipline – philosophy. Throughout the introduction Moran makes unexplained allusions and references to philosophers and their philosophical works under the assumption that the reader is familiar with the works (Moran 9-13).
Additionally, it is the people who are making the most field advances, the most highly educated, who are also the most specialized. There is too much knowledge for there to be Renaissance Men like Leonardo DaVinci who made advances in every discipline. While it may do a science researcher a bit of good to take a writing class, so as to say, improve his or her research grant requests, I do not think it would be a good idea, for, say, an oncologist to study the works of Nietzsche. Although the analysis skills one would develop from studying literature could help anyone, from a mathematician to a salesman with everyday tasks, basic problem solving, communicating effectively, and even possibly in their own fields- the fact of the matter is that advances are made in specific fields by specialists. In order to better learn about our world and solve its many problems, we need specialization. An example of this would be a trip to your general practitioner’s office. Have an eye infection? You get referred to an Opthamologist. Worried about a skin rash? You see a dermatologist. Moran, himself, even makes my point saying that individuals who “limit themselves to certain closely defined fields and controlled situations…produce apparently clearer, more rigorous and effective samples of ‘useful knowledge’” (Moran 7).