No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field.
The claim made in the argument is that a field of study is most benefited when it draws from interdisciplinary knowledge. I am in agreement with this viewpoint and would defend my opinion based on three key points – people have contributed significantly to fields in which they had limited exposure, people working in one field are likely to make mistakes that a person with a fresh perspective can point out, whole new frontiers could be traversed by crossing two different fields of knowledge which would also have a bearing on solving social problems.
Let us take the example of Bill Gates, an entrepreneur par excellence who spent a substantial portion of his life in the IT industry. Post his voluntary retirement he decided to dedicate his life to philanthropic causes primarily in the area of health, a field in which he had little exposure or theoretical grounding. But despite what might popularly be considered a ‘handicap’, or perhaps because of it, the foundation has been able to make significant contribution to the improvement of health initiatives in third world countries. Bill Gates drew heavily from this experience as a businessman in creating a new field, that of philanthrocapitalism, and has been able to alleviate some of the ills that dogged the philanthropic community – scalability, accountability, evaluating success and raising funds. It was his perspective as an outsider that enabled him to view the field afresh, to challenge the status quo and look for solutions to problems that ailed the field.
When one spends a majority of their time working on the same thing, it often becomes a blind spot and even established experts are unable to subvert this problem. However when fresh ways of thinking and knowledge from other fields in imbibed, the problem reveals itself and is followed by a solution that enriches the field more than before. An example of this is the problem confounding the scientific community with regards to the molecular structure on an enzyme in a breed of monkeys that is known to cut proteins from an AIDS like virus. The puzzle when presented to lay people as an online game was cracked in less than 10 days!
Another defense for the importance of cross disciplinary knowledge is that new fields of study could be created at the hybrid intersection of existing fields. Studies on extra terrestrial life forms are one such example which necessarily require an understanding of both astronomy and biology. The field would be able to make little headway in the absence of knowledge of even one of these areas. Learnings from this field of study could have important implications for humanity and have the potential to attenuate our problems or compound them. But in either case an absence of knowledge would be far more harmful.
Opponents however argue that independent fields of study are likely to advance faster, when an attempt is not being made to solve all problems at one go. They argue that a possible solution is not presented until it satisfies the beliefs of experts of all the fields, which could be a daunting task. For instance the evolutionary science is severely restricted because it contradicts religious sentiments and beliefs. This behavior however is akin to ‘The Ostrich myth’ and one needs to realize that ignoring a problem would not make the problem go away.
In conclusion there is much to be gained when different fields of knowledge intersect and work together to solve problems. Significant gains are likely when an esoteric view is adopted.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 118, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'IT'?
Suggestion: the; IT
...nt a substantial portion of his life in the IT industry. Post his voluntary retirement...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 366, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...pite what might popularly be considered a 'handicap', or perhaps becaus...
^
Line 2, column 693, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...italism, and has been able to alleviate some of the ills that dogged the philanthropic comm...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 163, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...rts are unable to subvert this problem. However when fresh ways of thinking and knowled...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, so, third, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 11.3162921348 221% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 42.0 33.0505617978 127% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 86.0 58.6224719101 147% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2969.0 2235.4752809 133% => OK
No of words: 589.0 442.535393258 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04074702886 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92639038232 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99794936078 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 304.0 215.323595506 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516129032258 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 934.2 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.77640449438 281% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 78.7115921528 60.3974514979 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.380952381 118.986275619 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.0476190476 23.4991977007 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2380952381 5.21951772744 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268664786421 0.243740707755 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0801775596007 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0668668571751 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142478943163 0.150359130593 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0545769069943 0.0667264976115 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 154.0 100.480337079 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 11.8971910112 151% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.