Science and the need for Multi-dimensionality
I think the other disciplines are ways of thinking and ways of knowing…..I’m not sure I see a need or reason to draw a distinction…..much less exclude one or the other.
But…when science has ultimate authority….to speak through something like neuroscience….and not be informed by other disciplines and ways of thinking….it misses the point. (see also Neuroscientist at Stanford Professor Newsome). I’ve also seen extensive refutations of the theory of determinism from
Plus….science takes place in the context of the other disciplines both:
1) at the scientist & science community level (interpretive)
2) the level at which that which is studied (data)
A scientist and/or system theorist must come to terms with these mediations. So for instance, the underlying contexts extend to philosophy and psychology. Without understanding those two you aren’t likely to understand.
Our lives are fundamentally multi-dimensional. The areas science studies are fundamentally multi-dimensional. It needs and we need a full range of multiple-dimensional tools to study those multiple dimensions.
I think also approaching problems from the role of the scientist and the role of an artist or creative (or lateral thinker). I think that’s ultimately what separates a number of our top Nobel prize winners and inventors–because they understood how to integrate the two versus just using the scientist thinking model (Da Vinci, Edison, and Einstein were all noted for their creativity and insights and innovation).
Science isn’t always in a position to make value judgements about itself (biology, chemistry, and physics don’t have all that many ethical maxims). Honesty, consent, respect for human dignity or personhood, etc… are all potentially important.