Prompt #1: “The fields of study of academic disciplines can overlap, but adopting interdisciplinary approaches to the production of knowledge leads only to confusion.” Discuss this claim.
Word Count: 1519
The field of academics is vast and diverse. We, society as a whole, attempt to find areas within knowledge to make it easier to understand and/or to universalize a concept. Interdisciplinary studies take these fields of academia and incorporate teachings from these areas to create common understandings. However, in my opinion, interdisciplinary teachings lead to confusion. For example, within the field of psychology, there has been discussion of whether or not to use interdisciplinary practices in psychiatry. During an experiment done at Bradley Hospital in Riverside, Rhode Island psychiatrists were interviewed to see why they were using interdisciplinary practices and its productivity. While there were a numerous accounts of positive outcomes, discourse between clinicians happened frequently. In every case, participants in the experiment described conflict and treatment complications, which, in their opinion, were aided by their interdisciplinary practices and collaborations. I believe that all fields of academia lead to some form of confusion, whether through collaboration, self-interpretation, or because of conflicting concepts. To what extent, in response to the claim made that the fields of knowledge create confusion, does the use of the way of knowing reason create confusion from interdisciplinary practices in the fields of Mathematics and Natural Science.
The Area of Knowledge of Mathematics is connected to logic and reason. Mathematics utilizes logic and reason to formulate and calculate the unexplained patterns and occurrences in life through the use of numbers. In the effort to answer these questions, Mathematics has many practices that all serve similar, more specified functions. This is inherently similar to the Area of Knowledge Natural Science. The connection of logic and reason in both areas of knowledge is supported in the field of chemistry because it is the interdiscipline of both fields. Chemistry requires both Mathematics, to balance equations, and Natural Science because elements and chemical compounds occur naturally in nature in both organic and inorganic compounds. To what extent does the logic shared by the interdisciplinary practice of Natural Science and Mathematics create confusion?
To some extent do these practices create confusion. Take into consideration this personal experience: my tenth grade pre-IB class was discussing a previous Chemistry test in our Algebra class. The students and I recognized that material we learned from our Algebra course (being able to answer equations with multiple variables) helped them to balance the chemical equation for photosynthesis. Referring to Chemistry as the interdisciplinary study of Mathematics and Natural Science, I use Reason as a Way of Knowing to deduce parts of the argument that determine if it is possible for Mathematics to be used in Natural Science. The argument is that if all Chemistry, a subfield of Natural Science, uses Algebra, a subfield of Mathematics, through logic and reason then there can be no confusion. This claim is supported by the students recognizing that their Algebra course helped them to balance a chemical equation. If I attempt the same argument but in opposite order, the argument becomes invalid because chemistry cannot be used in Algebra. While there are ways to measure the various elements in a chemical equation and how to use applied math to balance the equation, there is not way to calculate the amount of Chemistry in Algebra.
Under what circumstances does the application of logic in the interdisciplinary practice of Natural Science and Mathematics not cause confusion? There are no circumstances where the application of logic in the interdisciplinary fields of Mathematics and Natural Science can overlap to not create confusion. In another personal example, my Calculus teacher was lecturing her students on optimization problems. Optimization problems use differential calculus to answer a “real-life problem”. In this case, it was how to measure the amount of a specific chemical, glucose, being produced from a plant. In this “real-life problem” the students observed that they were applying Mathematics to this Natural Science based question. One might argue that this a situation is one where Natural Science can be applied to Mathematics, however, the “real–life problem” only calculated the production of glucose from the plant. Once again, Mathematics is being used in Natural Science. If it was possible for Natural Science to be used in Mathematics, then it would saying that the fields themselves were interdisciplinary. If this statement were true, then the Calculus students would not be recognizing that the problem uses the math they have learned.
How is reason as a Way of Knowing used to create confusion in interdisciplinary studies? The application of reason in Mathematics and Natural Science creates confusion. By definition, interdisciplinary practices are the combining of one or more academic fields. Because of this definition, the combing of both Mathematics and Natural Science as academic fields could mean recognizing algebra inside of a chemical equation or teaching an optimization problem concerning glucose production. The ambiguity of Mathematics and Natural Science creates confusion for the overlap because the standard definition for interdisciplinary does not give equal value to both sides. Overall, Mathematics is still being used in Natural Science to calculate something. With this said, Natural Science can not be used in Mathematics other than for some subject within math to measure or calculate some subject within Natural Science as seen by both previous scenarios.
In what other areas of academia can interdisciplinary practices be observed? The Areas of Knowledge Ethics and History also utilize interdisciplinary methods of learning and teaching. The field of Ethics focuses on faith and reason to help an individual come to terms with their moral principles. “If God says that it is morally wrong to kill, then it is morally wrong to kill. And if society says it is morally wrong to kill, then it might be morally wrong to kill” By utilizing reason as a Way of Knowing, an individual is able to create an argument to help them form their moral principles which corresponds with their faith. History is similar in that it methodically records first and second hand events before applying logic for similar situations in the future. The logic used from both Ethics and History creates interdisciplinary studies. Philosophy is a prime example because the subject area of philosophy focuses on utilizing the logic and reason from history to create a plethora of background information while remaining focused on the study of faith as a concept. This is supported through the existence of Plato and his disciples. He is not recognized as the father of Philosophy, but rather a major contributor to understanding knowledge. From a historical aspect, his teachings were recorded by his disciples and all of what he taught focuses on the idea of faith and the individual, one of the main concepts of Ethics.
To what extent does the interdisciplinary practice of Ethics and History create confusion? Similar to Mathematics and Natural Science, the interdisciplinary practice Ethics and History do create some confusion. In Philosophy, the interdiscipline of Ethics and History, confusion does not arise as noticeably. Reason plays an important role in the combining the two fields to provide how they establish their arguments, however, the use of language creates confusion. Language communicates knowledge, however it also communicates an individual’s opinions. Because history is recorded by historians, it is impossible for them not to voice their opinions. This is one of the basic components of Ethics, moral principles and individual beliefs. For example, in the philosophical book The God Dialogues, Eva, an atheist, voices her opinions about God and uses various religious texts to prove he does not exist. Her use of language creates an opinion biased towards her beliefs while using texts to confirm her statements. Confusion within this practices only lies within the confines of how a person produces their argument through their personal use of language.
Some may question: under what circumstances can language not cause confusion for interdiscipline? The only way for language to prevent confusion is for an individual to have no personal opinion and have the ability to process information for all possible objections and erase them. For this to occur, the individual would be erasing the fundamental parts of both Ethics and History as a whole. Because personal opinion is needed in Ethics to provide the concept of individuality and their morals and concept of faith, it would be impossible to erase them from this interdiscipline. In addition, facts are needed to support the claims made but more importantly need some way to process them. Without an individual’s personal opinion, this would be extremely difficult to cipher through.
To conclude, the statement that “interdisciplinary approaches lead to confusion” is inherently true. By examining how Mathematics and Natural Science both use logic and reason to answer and formulate questions found within their respective disciplines helps to create interdisciplinary practices. However, the confusion arises from application and the use of ambiguous language that blurs the true extent of what these questions are asking. In addition, the academic fields of Ethics and History create confusion through language solely because the information provided within the interdiscipline of field can only be voiced through another individual. This creates confusion because the a single individual no longer has the ability to produce their own argument.