To respond to the above statement, several terms must be understood. ‘Interdisciplinary approaches’ are modi operandi, which have resulted from the combination of methodologies or knowledge from different academic disciplines. From my personal experiences, I have defined ‘confusion’ as uncertainty concerning the knowledge gained. As a knower, my knowledge of this comes from my International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB Diploma) studies. I had to combine my knowledge of Psychology and Mathematics when explaining trends from the results of my research on the Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic. This combination increased my certainty concerning the effects of this heuristic on the result of a product, hence resulting in less ‘confusion’. Much of academic research and the gaining of knowledge relies on the usage of interdisciplinary approaches. For example, bioinformatics research relies on interdisciplinary approaches involving Mathematics, Computer Science, Biology and Engineering, to analyse DNA sequences of genetic illnesses, protein expression, and more (Luscombe, Greenbaum and Gerstein, 2001). Through the IB Diploma, I have been able to understand how the methodologies of different academic disciplines could be combined to further knowledge production. Therefore, this statement will have significant implications on the way knowers gain knowledge, especially within academic contexts. If the above statement is false, then the reputation of the IB Diploma, where emphasis is placed on using interdisciplinary approaches in the production of knowledge will increase, and similar qualifications would be created.
It can be argued that interdisciplinary approaches do not lead to confusion when the areas of knowledge use the same way of knowing. An example of this can be seen within Game Theory, which involves approaches found within mathematics and the human sciences, especially Economics and psychology. An interdisciplinary approach involving these areas of knowledge does not lead to confusion, as they all use reason. Mathematics uses deductive reasoning to prove that the mathematical models used within Game Theory are valid, hence providing support for Game Theory. This leads to less confusion within Game Theory. However, in psychology, correlations can be deduced from results from experiments to explain human behaviour, and this requires reason. Within Economics, reason is used in the homo economicus model to gain knowledge about an agent’s future behaviour. Game Theory uses the same model of behaviour in the production of knowledge (Levine, n.d.). Therefore, these explanations for human behaviour can be used to provide support for and to reduce confusion surrounding Game Theory. The way of knowing of reason does not change regardless of the area of knowledge it is used in, so it can be argued that the methodologies used within the different academic disciplines can be combined. Therefore, interdisciplinary approaches do not lead to confusion.
On the other hand, it should not be assumed that when reason is used in different areas of knowledge, that this will guarantee an interdisciplinary approach which does not lead to confusion, as reason is used differently in different areas of knowledge, so the methodologies of different disciplines are not always compatible. This led me to raise the following knowledge question: when preventing interdisciplinary approaches from leading to confusion, can reason be used with emotion for the production of knowledge? The answer to this is yes – a rebuttal to the counterclaim is that emotion can be used alongside reason to prevent confusion. In Economics, emotion has been used by adapting the homo economicus model to take consideration of cognitive biases, such as confusion (Gintis, 2000). Subsequently, the better model, which agrees with knowledge gained in Psychology, has been represented using methodologies from mathematics. Emotion is used in mathematics when generating probabilities, and this resulting knowledge agrees with knowledge in the human sciences gained using emotion. Areas of knowledge using the same way of knowing can gain knowledge which does not clash with each other, resulting in the compatibility of the human sciences and mathematics when gaining knowledge. Furthermore, similarities in disciplines’ methodologies allow for their compatibility. Therefore, interdisciplinary approaches to the production of knowledge does not lead to conclusion.
This argument will have great implications on educational systems around the world in terms of the sharing of knowledge between different disciplines. The sharing of knowledge between different disciplines will be viewed as important when reducing confusion. Qualifications which involve interdisciplinary approaches, such as the International Baccalaureate Diploma, fit this perspective. Therefore, qualifications like the IB Diploma will improve, and similar qualifications will be created. As a result, the personal knowledge of students will be affected, as they will be encouraged to approach problems and gain knowledge using interdisciplinary approaches, to prevent more confusion in the future.
It can be argued that interdisciplinary approaches can cause confusion, because the methodologies used in different academic disciplines clash with each other. The natural sciences and religious knowledge systems demonstrate a prime example of this. The natural sciences relies on the principle of falsification. Here, I have chosen to define falsification as the process of proving hypotheses or information wrong. To fulfil the principle of falsification, scientists rely on experimentation, peer reviews, and more, in order to gain knowledge. For example, when completing my biology Internal Assessment, I applied the Pearson Correlation statistical test (Statistics.laerd.com, 2013), in attempt to falsify my hypothesis that increasing the concentration of fructose would cause the rate of fermentation to increase and then decrease, after a maximum rate was reached. This led me to raise the following knowledge question: How does the principle of falsification affect attempts to combine methodologies within the natural sciences and religion? In the religious knowledge systems, believers do not allow their beliefs to become falsified. Through the Parable of the Invisible Gardner, Antony Flew argued that believers will resist all attempts to falsify their beliefs and will ignore all evidence which conflicts with their beliefs, even if those religious claims seemingly make no difference to their life. He argued that believers will use many excuses to defend their position, until they run out of them. John Frame’s criticism of Flew’s argument showed that believers will seek to verify rather than falsify their beliefs, as knowledge of religion is of great value to them and therefore make a great difference to their lives (Dartmouthapologia.org, 2016). Religious knowledge stems from the way of knowing of faith and personal knowledge in the form of religious experiences. On the other hand, knowledge in the natural sciences is not gained through personal revelations or experiences. It is the presence of the usage of the way of knowing of faith in the methodologies within the religious knowledge systems and the lack of presence whereof in the methodologies of the natural sciences which can result in clashes between religion and the natural sciences. Therefore, it can be argued that trying to use an interdisciplinary approach involving religion and the natural sciences would result in confusion.
On the other hand, it should not be assumed that combining the vastly different methodologies of different academic disciplines will guarantee that the interdisciplinary approach to gaining knowledge will lead to confusion. John Polkinghorne has argued that the natural sciences and religion can work together. For example, it is known that the conditions for the Big Bang to occur would have been very rare, but by combining the methodologies of the natural sciences and religious knowledge systems, Polkinghorne argued that God allowed the very rare conditions of the Big Bang to occur (Williams and Wieland, n.d.). By combining these two academic disciplines, an interdisciplinary approach was created which provided a possible explanation for the Big Bang, which could fit the views of a wider range of people, thus reducing confusion. A rebuttal to this counterclaim is that knowers should not try to equate methodologies from different disciplines, as they are discrete. As the religious knowledge systems use faith, and the natural sciences use falsification, combining the dissimilar methodologies of these disciplines can be argued to result in a category error. By using religion as a way of explaining science, explanations could be oversimplified. As a knower, this implies that people would be more cautious when combining the methodologies of different disciplines, as a dichotomy error would result in more confusion. The caution knowers take in reducing confusion would therefore result in further segregation of academic disciplines.
To conclude, adopting interdisciplinary approaches to the gaining of knowledge does not always lead to confusion. For example, the human sciences and mathematics both use the same ways of knowing, but in different ways, meaning that these areas of knowledge are compatible with each other. An interdisciplinary approach using methodologies from the human sciences and mathematics would therefore not lead to confusion. This will have great implications on education systems around the world, as well as on students. Education systems, academic research and students will be affected, as the usage of interdisciplinary approaches in the solving of problems will be encouraged. However, difficulties may be caused when academic disciplines are not compatible with each other, for example, when one principle is found in one academic discipline, but not the other. For example, when combining methodologies within religion and the natural sciences, the presence of the principle of falsification within the natural sciences but not within religion results may lead to a category error, which would lead to confusion. This implies that knowers may become more cautious when combining greatly contrasting academic disciplines. However, cases where religion and the natural sciences have been successfully combined provide further evidence to support the idea that adopting interdisciplinary approaches to the gaining of knowledge does not only lead to confusion. In fact, interdisciplinary approaches to the production of knowledge are more likely to reduce confusion.