Scientific Fragmentation: An Unwritten Rule

Coccia highlights a significant issue within the scientific community: the existence of an "unwritten golden rule" that dictates which discipline is appropriate for various domains of knowledge. He asserts:

"For some time now, a rather severe protocol reigns supreme in the republic of the sciences: this unwritten golden rule stipulates that one and only one discipline be appropriate for any object of knowledge and asserts, on the other hand, that all disciplines have a definite and limited number of objects and matters that it is suitable for them to know."

The increasing number of scholars decrying “scientific fragmentation or excessive specialization” can be viewed as a response to this pervasive unwritten rule governing scientific inquiry. While such a guideline may have its merits, Coccia posits that it stems not from scientific necessity but from a moral imperative to constrain one's intellectual pursuits.

"Like all forms of discipline, this protocol, too, has a nature and especially an end, which are typically moral and not gnoseological: the protocol serves to limit the will to know, to hold back its excesses, to bridle it not from the outside, but from within. What we call specialization involves a work on oneself, a cognitive and sentimental education that is hidden or, in most cases, forgotten and suppressed."

For Coccia, this guideline is less about accurately portraying or elucidating natural phenomena and more about compelling scientists to restrict their investigations. He further emphasizes:

"This cognitive asceticism has nothing natural about it — it is, on the contrary, the unstable and uncertain result of long and lamentable efforts, the poisoned fruit of a spiritual exercise practiced on oneself, of a prolonged castration of one’s own curiosity."

In this perspective, the terms "specialization" and "curiosity suppression" are interconnected. Specialization represents a conscious choice to forgo broader knowledge.

Photo by Alessandro De Bellis on Unsplash

Institutionalization and Specialization in Academia

If this inclination towards specialization is not inherently dictated by scientific exploration, where does it originate? Coccia argues that it aligns with the establishment of universities during the Middle Ages.

"Against the ideal of a global, multidisciplinary, encyclopedic culture (the enkuklos paideia of the ancients), the university was born to affirm the need to support the liberal arts — techniques of freedom inherited from the ancients and deemed insufficient — with other forms of knowledge — most notably law, medicine, and especially theology."

These areas of knowledge diverged from a holistic perspective, creating distinct and often incompatible paths. The jurist and theologian could no longer be one and the same.

Coccia notes that historically, a scholar would embody diverse forms of knowledge, striving to find unity among them. However, the rise of the university marked a shift towards a more compartmentalized structure.

"The birth of the university does not correspond to the birth of new forms of knowledge or to the birth of a new organization of knowledge, but to the formalization of a new organization of learned people [savants]."

Thus, universities became spaces where specialists congregate to impart specific knowledge, rather than fostering the creation of new insights. This arrangement often hampers interdisciplinary collaboration, as specialized knowledge is frequently viewed as superior to broader inquiry.

In the video titled The Struggle is Real: Sorting Out Your Academic Life, we explore the challenges faced by scholars in navigating the complexities of academic life. It discusses the pressures of specialization and how they impact the pursuit of knowledge.

Photo by Rita Morais on Unsplash

Discussion: The Intersection of Philosophy and Science

While the institutionalization of sciences within universities has led to a rigidly defined form of specialization, this does not mark the conclusion of the discourse. Philosophy, driven by curiosity and autonomy, often engages with diverse ideas and disciplines.

Coccia's critique is not an indictment of the potential for interdisciplinary research; rather, it aims to highlight a tendency that he perceives as detrimental to both philosophical and scientific inquiry.

This perspective does not negate the existence of researchers who actively seek to bridge gaps across disciplines. Many scholars embrace the challenge of conducting interdisciplinary research that draws from various fields, revealing a vibrant landscape of collaboration.

If you’re intrigued by the intersection of philosophy and science, I would love to share some remarkable contributions that showcase how these domains can interact fruitfully.

The video The Struggle is Real! TOP 5 Reasons Scientists Struggle to Communicate with the Public addresses common barriers that scientists face when trying to engage with broader audiences, highlighting the need for effective communication across disciplines.