Moti Nissani

The author presents an updated version of J.B. Conant's vision of the inclusion of hands-on experiences and self-contained historical case studies in introductory philosophy of science course. The experiential component is often neglected in philosophy of science courses. Students are usually given scientific facts, concepts, and practices as their formal introduction to the material, which prohibits them from engaging with the question of the nature of science in general. Student finish courses without adequate experience of the concepts or objects that are essential for understanding the philosophical foundations of science. This paper outlines a series of pedagogical tools that highlight vital experiential components of the scientific enterprise, such as an emphasis on observation and the problem solving and creative aspects of scientific inquiry. The author contends that these components help confront common misconceptions on the nature of science which many students hold in introductory philosophy of science courses. These tools also help students engage with the scientific literature and incite discussion among students.

Interdisciplinarity involves bringing together distinctive components of two or more disciplines. In academic discourse, interdisciplinarity typically applies to four realms: knowledge, research, education, and theory. Interdisciplinary knowledge involves familiarity with distinctive components of two or more disciplines. Interdisciplinary research combines distinctive components of two or more disciplines in the search or creation of new knowledge, operational procedures, or artistic expressions. Interdisciplinary education merges distinctive components of two or more disciplines in a single program of instruction. Interdisciplinary theory takes interdisciplinary knowledge, research, or education as its main objects of study. At any given historical period, the interdisciplinary richness of any two exemplars of knowledge, research, and education can be compared by weighing four variables: number of disciplines, the "distance" between them, novelty, and integration.

The frequently-encountered wholesale dismissal of either interdisciplinary knowledge or research reflects a profound misunderstanding of their vital contributions to scholarship, society, and individuals. This paper presents the only self-contained, comprehensive defense of interdisciplinary knowledge and research, arguing that they are important because: 1. Creativity often requires interdisciplinary knowledge. 2. Immigrants often make important contributions to their new field. 3. Disciplinarians often commit errors which can be best detected by people familiar with two or more disciplines. 4. Some worthwhile topics of research fall in the interstices among the traditional disciplines. 5. Many intellectual, social, and practical problems require interdisciplinary approaches. 6. Interdisciplinary knowledge and research serve to remind us of the unity-of-knowledge ideal. 7. Interdisciplinarians enjoy greater flexibility in their research. 8. More so than narrow disciplinarians, interdisciplinarians often treat themselves to the intellectual equivalent of traveling in new lands. 9. Interdisciplinarians may help breach communication gaps in the modern academy, thereby helping to mobilize its enormous intellectual resources in the cause of greater social rationality and justice. 10. By bridging fragmented disciplines, interdisciplinarians might play a role in the defense of academic freedom. The case against interdisciplinary knowledge and research is made up of many intrinsic drawbacks and practical barriers. Taken together, these rewards, drawbacks, and barriers suggest a mild shift in the contemporary world of learning towards interdisciplinary knowledge and research.