It has been said that there is “no reason why we cannot link facts and theories across disciplines and create a common groundwork of explanation.” What this statement is implying is that there should be no impediment to making “common” knowledge more common, and for advanced, high-level thinking to be a teachable skill available to all, regardless of culture, language, or economic standing. While the concept being referred to in this statement certainly sounds like an ideal state of being, it may also be a sweeping generalization of what is actually a more complex issue. One might ask, in response to this statement, who is to say whether this is possible. It’s certainly easier to make a statement than to conduct the action which a statement implies. The general nature of the statement in question also fails to emphasize whether or not this is referring to solely academic subjects or can it cross over to find common ground amongst any school of thought, even those which seem to inherently be in eternal conflict? Science and religion serve as a prime example of two such schools of thought which seem to be at odds with one another. However, religion would be left out of the conversation entirely if this discussion is restricted to academic, educational matters alone (although religion can be looked at from a scholarly point of view in many fields). On that note, humankind has always been searching for explanations for any and all phenomena they have encountered and formerly found solace in spirituality and abstract theories about the nature of the universe. The idea of keeping a log or a synthesis of all acquired human knowledge began when humankind began to develop various systems of writing. The concept of the library was most likely born out of this desire to house all the major works of civilization. As one looks at the process under which human society developed its ideas and began to keep track of them, it would seem that the human race has always had the desire to not only seek new explanations or additions to old ones, but to be able to refer to them later on, to share ideas between specialists of different fields and through this collaboration, we would advance beyond the boundaries of the hunting and gathering lifestyle. To this day, it remains beneficial to be able to collaborate with fellow specialists and when such collaboration occurs, it seems that humanity has no limits to how high it can ascend in terms of education, technology, and even future evolution. So when one asks whether it is possible to “link facts and theories across disciplines” for the benefit of all human knowledge, the answer would have to be a resounding “yes.” The reason why is because this kind of collaboration is not only possible, it is the very backbone of innovation and to social evolution.
The human race has ascended from animalistic origins (which we arguably have never left completely and likely never will). From this starting point, we have developed complex social structures, invented the concept of culture by pursuing the desire to not only appreciate our surroundings, but to capture the sensations we feel from our surrounding environments; this idea became known to us as “the arts.” Art and music is central to who we are as a species to this day, and since its origins are difficult to trace, it would seem that they have been with our species before our species ever emerged in its current form. Why is the desire to create and appreciate art and music central to human knowledge? Because our appreciation for what we call “beauty” has made us curious; humans are not satisfied with merely noticing the colors, sounds and smells of life on earth, they have an in-born desire to seek an explanation for everything that they see around them. Humanity began by simply creating their own explanations, just as they had recreated the stories they would tell around the fire through wall paintings and by telling the stories themselves. These fantastical accounts of how life on earth came into being became the myths and legends of later generations that we identify with to this day. Religion was also born out of the same concept of simply coming up with explanations for life on earth. But when doubt became commonplace, and the desire for understanding still remained, people began to seek another means of acquiring information; this time through processes of trial and error which can help to explain how things actually came into being. The field being referred to here is science. Once science (which came from philosophy) became the next big concept on humanity’s mind, the sky was the limit as far as how much we humans could potentially discover and comprehend. Before long, the concept of “knowledge” became more than just oral traditions being passed down from generation to generation, and soon started to become an awareness of any number of subjects which can help us gain a true understanding of the physical and metaphysical reality we live in. Today, it seems as though humankind is unstoppable, and that it very well could stand the test of time and outlive the earth itself (assuming we one day depart from our home planet). The point to take away from this is the none of our accomplishments to date and for all time will have ever been possible without the sharing of interdisciplinary knowledge as described above. Without such distribution of knowledge, there would be no education, and each individual would have to make all the discoveries of mankind alone (which is impossible in one lifetime if it is being done by one individual). Because of this, one can confirm that, indeed, there is no reason why interdisciplinary knowledge cannot be linked together for our benefit and for a synthesis of all human knowledge. Not only is it possible to gather all human knowledge in such a way that all people can access it, it would seem that it is already underway.
It could easily be argued that today’s online encyclopedia trend may be an example of the closest thing humanity has to a true archive of all current human knowledge, and could therefore be no temporary “trend” at all. While such online encyclopedias as Wikipedia are heavily criticized as being unfit as a scholarly resource due to the fact that anyone can edit them, it should be noted that any and all postings on a wiki page are required to have reliable sources to back up their claims, just as in any academic paper (Cummings 112). What is impressive is not only the amount of knowledge that has been gathered by online encyclopedias over the past few years, but the astonishing collection of journals, books and articles which one can find in any wiki page’s bibliography. Truly, this is where the majority of all human knowledge can be found and read by anyone in almost every spoken language on earth. If anything at all is unclear in the articles themselves, one can simply follow embedded links in key words to other pages which can help shed light and therefore gain a deeper understanding of the topic being described. In other words, virtually anyone from any discipline can discretely learn about topics that are unrelated to their own specialty. If such encyclopedia networks are not the perfect example of “linking facts and theories across disciplines” for the creation of common informational ground between all people, then there never will be a better real-world example. The modern era is commonly referred to as the “information age”, and it is because of databases like these that the time of our current generation has earned such a moniker. The theory of knowledge can be tied to this ready availability of information, because through the acquisition of such data comes the acquisition of knowledge itself; no matter how seemingly unrelated and “useless” much of it may seem. Certainly, it can be said that the internet is a poor example of what direction our culture is heading in due to the copious amounts of so-called “garbage” that circulates through its various networks. However, for every pointless article, tweet, blog, or social network post, there is educational material to match the less useful information in just as many numbers, arguably far greater, since the resource materials which the internet can potentially provide serve as a necessity to all students and professional researchers everywhere. This information is available at one’s fingertips, and the fact that it is so should serve as a reflection of our culture today; more so than the nature of the content within. With every opportunity to provide quality material comes an equal opportunity to provide a new medium for entertainment, which is an unfortunate side-effect of innovation. However, this does not mean that all innovation inevitably leads to mindless commercialization and exploitation; it’s just an inevitable byproduct of it.
The concept in question (pertaining the crossing over of knowledge) goes by another name as well: consilience. Consilience is the idea that, not only is it possible to merge all seemingly unrelated disciplines into one consensus encompassing all of human knowledge, but that when one seeks the same conclusion found in one scientific discipline through a seemingly unrelated field, the results should be the same, in theory (Weinberg 13). For instance, if one can prove the scientific properties of one particular elementary particle through empiric data collected through experiments, then conclusions drawn from these findings should also be provable through, say, mathematics alone, in addition to what had already been done. This is true of many fields; physics, for example, is a science, but it is heavily reliant on high-end mathematics in order to draw conclusions from any field or laboratory research. But since math and physics go hand in hand, does this mean that they cannot operate independently of each other? It is difficult to say, but it is does serve as an example of a combined discipline since any good mathematician could get a good handle on physics with enough time and effort, while the reverse is certainly true of physicists. Using a more simplified example, it should not matter what methods are used to measure the physical dimensions of an object, whether it be through laser point measurements, photo imaging, or simple measuring tape; if all three practices have merit and are known to be accurate if used properly, then one should have the same answer in every case. Credit for consilience’s re-emergence in modern consciousness should go to Edward O. Wilson, who wrote the book on the subject in 1998 which put it into words that which made it possible for even the layman to discuss consilience in everyday conversation. In his book, Wilson states that consilience is a concept within a concept; an aspect of coherence that pinpoints what is needed and what should be strived for in modern intellectual thought (Wilson 8). Modern thinkers like Wilson have helped us realize that there should never be just one, standard, cardboard cut-out way of conducting research within one narrow discipline and that not only is it possible to reach across professions and fields for a consensus through multiple perspectives, but that it is a necessity for humanity to continue to thrive. Much of what is considered the most groundbreaking of scientific accomplishments has been achieved through interdisciplinary collaboration. Astrophysicists need engineers and rocket scientists in order for a space program like NASA to exist, otherwise it would simply be a theoretical field in and of itself. Thinkers need the help of those who can bring their ideas into action and through this marriage of ingenuity with physical application, humanity can and has worked wonders. The idea of unified knowledge has helped aid the development of all scientific and other academic fields, but in contrast, religion has not found such success.
If math and science are responsible for the improvement of human life, then it can be said that, while religion is not the polar opposite, it certainly has its disadvantages in terms of trying to remain relevant to the needs of humankind. We need math and science to survive, but do we absolutely need spirituality? Furthermore, does religion have a place in the consilience discussion? Some might argue that it does not, but while religions are more abstract and based on tradition over cold, hard data and facts, the knowledge and teachings of religions are not completely useless to the unification of human knowledge. Western Christianity has a lot to offer in terms of history and cultural knowledge. For example, one may not be able to fully grasp the significance or meaning of many words in the English language without understanding their biblical origins. Every person on earth, whether religious or not, uses religious phrases and figures of speech when writing or speaking. Even scientific concepts occasionally include references to ancient religious concepts, just in a symbolic manner; such as the concept of disasters being a non-literal “act of god.” So while ancient scriptures and holy books may not serve a purpose in the scientific method, they do play a role the contribution to understanding who we are and where we have been in human history in terms of what our predecessors used to believe in. All disciplines and subjects that make up human knowledge as a whole deserve a part in the proverbial assembly of all known information. Science requires observable phenomena in order for research to be conducted, and if some aspects of life in this universe still lack any observable data to start with, one can look to an alternative means of gaining an understanding until science can offer the full explanation. Ideally, such alternatives should not come into conflict with future scientific findings, but sometimes statements are made without logical consideration (usually by those who fatalistically distrust science) and misinformation is not only encouraged, but enforced in some religious subcultures. The existence of religion itself is not an issue that should come into conflict with free intellectual thought. However, the way in which some people wield their belief systems can be problematic; such as creationists denying known science in the name of what is comfortable to them. The unification of all academic disciplines can dispel such misinformation and is therefore vital to human survival and to the continued existence of human civilization.
In short, yes it is indeed possible to unify all schools of thought and all professional fields in academia and beyond. One can see the education system, especially higher education, as a prime example of overlapping disciplines in action. Taking into consideration the fact that college students are able to seek more than one degree as well as being able to combine disciplines in one single degree altogether. One might say that higher education, whether consciously or subconsciously, adopts the principles of interdisciplinary unity through concept of consilience. Revisiting the question from the paper’s introduction: when one asks whether it is possible to “link facts and theories across disciplines” for the benefit of all human knowledge, the answer would indeed have to be a resounding “yes.” Given the examples above, one can see that it is not only possible, but it has already been done, or at least attempted, time and time again by humanity’s predecessors and by current generations. This kind of collaboration between the sciences has proven itself to be the very backbone of innovation and social evolution. None of the accomplishments of today would have ever been possible without it. But, true unity as described by Edward O. Wilson has yet to be achieved globally and across all disciplines for reasons outlined above. But consilience is the model which we should arguably be following for the betterment of our civilization with the acknowledgement of all our differences in the world and in the way the various disciplines are conducted throughout each different culture. Unification of knowledge is possible without drowning out diversity.
References
Cummings, R.E. 2009. Lazy Virtues: Teaching in the Age of Wikipedia. Nashville: Vanderbilt
Weinberg, S. 1993. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of
Nature. New York: Vintage Books. Pg.13
Wilson, E.O. 1998. Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage Books / Random
House. Pg.8.
