Chapter XI: The Future of Interdisciplinarity

The induction of art in the form of cinema helps make sense of interdisciplinarity and is an effective way to relate the concept. Discussion of truth and knowledge in relation to cinema provides the reader a sense of visualization, also as a relatable reference. One of the most significant scenes in movie history comes from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey of what editors in the business call a ‘match cut’. The scene follows an ape using a bone as a tool for the succession of the human race, bypassing thousands of years when the bone match cuts to the image of a space ship¹. This scene is important when looking through the lens of the ape smashing the bone around at the dawn of man, the wielding potential that can happen over time and the future implications that come with it are thematically present in this scene. Interdisciplinarity, thought of as a phenomenon that can be explained in learning and the research process, more specifically, in fields of higher education such as biology, anthropology, and the humanities can now be used as a tool for the advancement of knowledge concerning all areas of learning, life, and society.

What would we say is the goal of reformation with this topic of interdisciplinarity? Not only is it to question and critique the past forms of knowledge, rather create the framework in a reform for a deeper understanding for the future of knowledge. I use the word reformation rather than reframing considering the distinction between the two. The goal of reframing is to see the original in the new light while keeping tenants of the original; reformation is a personal complete change through knowledge about the topic in a new way. I cannot suggest reframing over reformation, my only hope is that this has proved a reformation in how one perceives knowledge and how one moves forward with knowledge and epistemology through learning, life, and society. The goal of reforming is to create a new set of guidelines for the betterment of the topic and the end user; therefore, I would conclude that the future of interdisciplinarity takes on a reforming approach to develop conscious outcomes for the role on epistemology. Furthermore, many different webs and combinations of knowledge are put together to synthesize knowledge towards truth.

Self-reflecting on the role of interdisciplinarity, we can conceptualize ideas that have led up to this point. First, I think we should review the definition of interdisciplinarity in chapter 1 which sets the tone for this book:

Interdisciplinarity is the inherent ability to use knowledge from many different realms and augment that knowledge to open new inquiry and new ways of understanding for successive progression throughout learning, life, and society.

In this chapter we will refer to previous chapters in the attempt to correlate this definition as a redux of interdisciplinarity towards a clear and concise framework. Furthermore, outlining the future implications of interdisciplinarity inside institutions culminating in the deeper meaning to what interdisciplinarity strives to achieve in the future.

The Future of Institutions: Respecting the Next Generation

In Part II of this book, I outlined many of the influential institutions that make an impact on our daily life; notably family, economy, learning, and public/governmental institutions. This comes in our ability to observe the empirical and objective notions of the world and doing research. In addition to that, we do our own thought experiments based on situations presented to us, hypothesize, test, and conclude (in many ways our own Scientific Method, i.e. Francis Bacon). For example, a child will look at a brussels sprout on his or her plate, as they stare into this odd green ball they will come up with a theory based on their senses: ‘I don’t like the look of this’. They will attempt to hypothesize making knowledgeable connections to look, touch, or smell and come up with a hypothesis: ‘this brussels sprout will taste bad’. The challenging part is that the kid will now test, by stabbing the sprout with a fork and taking the bite. From there, they will develop a conclusion. Either (A): their hypothesis has been proven and that the brussels sprout is disgusting, or (B): their hypothesis is incorrect, and the brussels sprout tastes fantastic.

This analogy allows for different conclusions to come from testing either in liking or disliking the brussels sprout. If we did not engage with interdisciplinary testing through a scientific and empirical method, brussels sprouts would be banished based on their look and preconceived notions about their history and past, completely negating the benefit of brussels sprouts from a health factor on human society. This is why the importance of science is needed to remove the narrow, vacuous, and narcissistic tendencies that individuals – predominantly in institutions – have with shortsighted and personalized knowledge. Current research has begun to understand the role on the future of interdisciplinarity. Sarah Linney from the higher education analysis group Quacquarelli Symonds, suggests that the current institution is offering interdisciplinarity achievements, however, without using inherent interdisciplinarity models. Also, the growth in the complexities of societies reflects a need for interdisciplinarity in the long run to sustain and enhance the advancement of learning². The National Center for Biotechnology Information/ National Institutes of Health completed a study on the interdisciplinarity future of research within academic and leadership institutions. The objective is to overcome obstacles, obtaining sufficient funding, and create competent interdisciplinary leaders in the future through proven methods³. Keestra uses the Kleinian^f approach to interdisciplinarity with the integration of extra-academic stakeholders having an influence on knowledge and using actionability to develop truthful answers in our society now and in the future⁴.

What we can codify from these ideas is the world we currently live and will continue to live in when facing complicated challenges. It is here that interdisciplinarity is required to be the leader in knowledge attainment and growth by individuals, with a sense of accountability towards creating a competent future for everyone. Now this does not mean you can rest on your critical notions, as you can continue critical thinking on interdisciplinarity as that keeps the ideas of interdisciplinarity consistently challenged and refreshing, so long as the challenges are rooted in a sense of logic, reason, and understanding.

Although some colleges, universities, even elementary and high schools are attempting to embrace interdisciplinarity if only ostensibly at the beginning; governance, as in the institution of government and civil service, provides another aspect of challenges that deserve discussion. We have unfortunately seen too much of a shift from a populist framework of governance to an elite representation. As voters we have allowed politicians to make many adjustments and amendments to laws, mutually on the fact that we have given them our vote to make their executive decisions in our best interest which is steadily not becoming the case. Unfortunately, I feel some of them would like to do that, as their notion in why they attained the seat is solely because they felt they were the best man/woman for the job. Ergo, their decision will be the best for their constituents and thus morally sound for society. Although admirable from their side, this is an absurd narcissism, that one person is a beacon of hope for a population that chooses to represent them. This is not a call for a revolution; however, the topic needs to be broached in a way where not only the populist voices can be heard, but the entrusted leaders can see the picture of this fallacy. This notion of governmental leaders unable to contextualize their role, while feigning competence in their role to enhance society is a disturbing realization that is Kafkaesque in nature. Much like the character of Josef K. following the blind bureaucracy of the ‘apparent law’ in The Trail (c. 1925), to which the proprietors of the law are unaware of the contextual nature of the law, but administer it anyways⁵. We too are allowing a non-nuanced, clouded judgement to reign over our laws in civil society, without accountability at the ballot box.

This is a troubling realization, if you have felt the same about the current form of government, all the more reason for an actionable solution. I use the Kafkaesque metaphor as the type of governance that happens within colleges and universities with makeshift courts, charging students with baseless crimes against policy and handing out repercussions. That is almost as absurd as walking into a book store, purchasing the book, bringing the book back because there was pages missing, and the book store not refunding you and actually banning you from the store for challenging the inconsistencies of the book. To quote a famous line from one of my favorite guilty pleasure movies, Jacobim Mugatu (played by Will Ferrell) in Zoolander yells forcefully “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.”⁶

Governance needs a double reformation in the sense that before finding an interdisciplinarity identity, it needs to self-actualize first. As for society, one might be able to look forward at the next generation in terms of succession with knowledge. Who will carry this knowledge forward? You could be shrewd and look at the younger generation with disdain; however, you must respect a newer generation, since we will need them in the future, entrusting them with the tools of independence. With the acceptance and competency of new technology, along with the openness of new technology being embraced by a younger generation, one can be highly optimistic about what can be done. With more access to knowledge today from podcasts, lectures, and the amazing work from places such as MIT with their OpenCourseWares platform; the access to knowledge to many people are vastly expanding and will only continue to grow in the future. The question will not be about access, rather the willingness to seek knowledge in many different places. The younger generation may not notice this, but they are on the precipice of an epistemological battle between clenching on interdisciplinarity through open knowledge, or drowning in the raging river of Kafkaesque bureaucracy and smashing off the rocks, blind to the unquestioning power of the status quo.

Individuals of a Marxist or postmodernist ideology would look at the previous and may be aligned with some of these ideals, which is great, a bridge is being constructed. However, although the need to question the realities through assessing critical-utopianism is displayed, the difference is that it comes in the form of dogmatic whistling about concepts that have nothing to do when helping a future generation. Ideas like Marxism, Stalinism, or Maoism is a way to display control over ideas that were theorized but will never work in a practical sense. Divergent opinions will always be present, so any type of ‘ism’ in its complete form will never work and always produce problems, therefore, accepting an interdisciplinary notion for ideals will be beneficial to maintaining a productive stasis in society. Remember, this is not about dismantling or breaking the status quo (i.e. stopping the flow of water in the river). Rather, if you lift yourself up from the raging river onto the log, the river still continues, however through a reformed mind, you can see and observe the dangers of the river, fashion a raft, and manage the river as a captain in your path of knowledge. This is not to remove Marxism or postmodernism from the discourse, how would that make anything better? Rather acknowledging the flaws in the theory, so that the theory can be used in other areas of knowledge as a support to the interdisciplinary logic, rationalization, and liberty to manage larger systems of learning, life, and society.

Understanding Truth: Deeper on Foundationalism and Anti-Foundationalism

This is a challenging topic and has been for thousands of years. On the other hand, it is a pertinent topic to develop an understanding of truth within the realm of interdisciplinarity and its future. First, I find it relevant when discussing truth, we must use the ‘Is-Ought Fallacy or Problem’ from David Hume. This fallacy outlines truths, points exposed by writers, and philosophical ideas that make positive statements about what is, and normative statements about what ought to be. In his work A Treatise of Human Nature (c. 1739):

“I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am supriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not concerned with an ought, and ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ‘tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d.”⁷

This for me is a salient understanding for a baseline towards truth for interdisciplinarity. For example, one might say the is can be understood that the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun are governed by the laws of gravity and the space time continuum, the ought is that we have to develop an understanding of dark matter, as in the space in between space time, and the outward push of gravity in expanding the universe as opposed to the downward push of gravity keeping us on Earth. For interdisciplinarity to be expanded in the future, it must reconcile an understanding of truth. Hume’s work fits nicely with the resurfacing of foundationalist and anti-foundationalist principles of truth through experimenting in the Humean tradition. In the attempt to bridge some sort of understanding towards what is meant and where they fit within the concept of truth, we have to look deeper into the anti-foundationalist and foundationalist conceptions of truth.

The anti-foundationalist framework discussed in early chapters reflect the critical concept of truth and experience as the only epistemological understanding. Expanding it further, it does not necessarily reject truth, rather truth is not fundamental or foundational, instead truth is relativistic. In addition, the claim that epistemological positions have no claim for any base. Proposed anti-foundationalists have suggested interesting ideas especially in the realm of using experience to develop knowledge like John Dewey⁸, William James⁹, and Karl Popper¹⁰. Also, other anti-foundationalists such as Derrida, Foucault, Crick, Rorty, and Fish all derive from the Hegelian concept of knowledge and truth coming from inquiry without a foundational system.

To be precise, the most famous anti-foundationalist work comes from Foucault, Derrida, and Fish. Foucault’s work in The Order of Discourse (c. 1971) conceptualizes the form of truth and objects of knowledge based on social construction and relationships of power¹¹. The anti-foundationalist framework parallels the postmodern framework similar of Derrida who vociferously denies foundationalism through a level of deconstruction and grounding truth. Derrida also opines that knowledge and language as ideas contradicting logic¹². Both come from the French intellectual circle of postmodernism, and their ideas represent an ethos that truth is not really truth, if what we know is truth comes out of the existential nothingness, ergo the void or abyss a la. Nietzsche.

“[T]he power of uttering a hidden truth, of telling the future, of seeing in all naivete what the others’ wisdom cannot perceive. It is curious to note that for centuries in Europe the speech of the madman was either not heard at all or else taken for the word of truth. It either fell into the void, being rejected as soon as it was proffered, or else people deciphered in it a rationality, naïve or crafty, which they regarded as more rational than that of the sane.”¹³

Derrida opines:

“But if sense is not discourse, their relationship, as concerns this placing on view, doubtless merits some particular attention…We only wish to point out several signs of both this circularity and this uneasiness in a preliminary way, taking our authority from the assurance that not only does Ideas not contradict the Logical Investigations on this point – on the contrary, it continuously clarifies the Investigations.”¹⁴

Both are similar in the concept that truth itself is a fallacy or subjugated through power structures throughout history and that logical thinking is never really logical. This of course culminates with the work of Stanley Fish who attempts to quantify foundationalist and anti-foundationalist sentiments through the types of oratory human who falls in one of these two camps:

“Homo Seriosus or Serious Man possesses a central self, an irreductible identity…This referent society is in turn contained in a physical nature itself referential, standing ‘out there’ independent of man…He communicates facts about both nature and society. Homo Rhetoricus or rhetorical man, on the other hand, is an actor; his reality public, dramatic. His sense of identity, depends on the reassurance of daily historonic reinactment…He assumes a natural agility in changing orientations. [He] is trained not to discover reality but to manipulate it.”¹⁵

The serious man references the foundationalist form of truth through logic and reason, while the rhetorical man references the anti-foundationalist truth as a tool to be manipulated and changed to fit certain emotions, narratives, and outcomes for the expressed consent of the rhetorical man. Fish who bases anti-foundationalist truth using emotions of fear, hope, and love combats the foundationalist concept of cold logic and emotionless rationalization of an existentialist world.

As Fish opined about communicating inalienable facts, foundationalist principles start with a justification of secure and inherent knowledge through methods of attaining knowledge (i.e. the Scientific Method). Many of the authors we discussed in the Enlightenment Era such as Descartes, Bacon, Locke, Hume, and Kant were the beginning of foundationalist thought. More contemporary, we can look at Clarence Irving Lewis, and Roderick Chisholm as modern-day rationalists and foundationalists. Lewis, a proponent of logic and pragmatism, grounds meaning in shared and conceived experience. In An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation (c. 1946) Lewis formulates an understanding of meaning of truth and reason.

“Every statement we know to be true is so known either by reason of experience or by reason of what the statement itself means. There are no other sources of knowledge than on one hand data of sense and on the other hand our own intended meanings. Empirical knowledge constitutes the one class; all that is knowable independently of sense experience – the a priori and the analytic – constitutes the other, and is determinable as true by reference to our meanings.”¹⁶

Chisholm, who was a doctoral student of Lewis, also outlines the concepts of the a priori thinking and a new form of individualism and liberalism similar to Locke. One of his most popular works, Theory of Knowledge (c. 1989), he outlines the epistemic principles of foundationalist knowledge through forms of justification.

“According to the concept of knowledge that has been developed here, the epistemic status of an empirical belief is a function of three different things. (1) The object of a belief may be self-presenting. In such a case, the belief may be called a basic apprehension. (2) Some beliefs have a kind of prima facie probability. If I accept a proposition, and if that proposition is not disconfirmed by my total evidence, then it is that proposition is probable for me. And, finally, (3) a belief may derive its epistemic status from the way in which it logically concurs with the other things one believes. As we have seen, these relations may raise the level of the proposition believed from that of being merely probable to that of being evident. The present account of knowledge is appropriately called foundational, since it includes basic apprehensions among the sources of epistemic justification.”¹⁷

Both Lewis and Chisholm create the framework of foundationalist truth towards a conclusion or a priori to develop knowledge. Anti-foundationalist principles of experience are a branch of this through different processes and denouncing that epistemological justification comes from anti-foundational ideas. But foundationalism goes one step further towards ending at the same goal where no form of manipulation, emotion, or narrative can realign the foundational conclusion of an idea or concept.

What do these competing values attempt to tell us about truth? Would it be that truth fall in either one or the other camp? Is it a binary view that truth needs to be either foundational or anti-foundational? Why must we be concerned with foundationalist and anti-foundationalist principles with respect to interdisciplinarity? Simply put, we do not have to create a strict binary between the two principles of truth, but we can create a structured rule based on a general empirical understanding of the world. As stated, the concept of anti-foundationalist reasoning can be beneficial, but it is a branch or an offshoot of an overall foundationalist principle that governs. This reflects that foundationalism is the truth, that allows for anti-foundationalist principles to fit within the structure. Inversely, others might say that without anti-foundationalism there is no foundationalism to be created, creating a chicken and the egg scenario. However, the argument that the anti-foundationalist truth only props the foundationalist principle, the foundationalist principle allows the ‘anti-foundation to exist in being an anti-foundation’. Much like a child through their laughter and joy can make a father or mother a better person. That child is only allowed to do that through the foundation of a father and a mother creating a child.

Another example between the two would be that the anti-foundationalist may argue that 10+5 is the best way to get to 15, or that 7 x 2 + 1 is the best way to get to 15, or even 5x = 4x + 3 with x = 3, your final answer is 15. The foundationalist principle is that the answer will always be 15…not 16…not 14, but 15. Even if we look at a broader theoretical idea; individuals can engage in relationships, and those relationships are different, some are contentious, some are loving, and some are awkward. Regardless of the characteristic, the foundational principle is that there is a relationship between individuals, regardless of how you determine it. Furthermore, even no relationship is still a relationship, it could be characterized a scientifically void relationship.

The argument between foundationalism vs. anti-foundationalism is the necessary action to continue questioning; however, concepts like this make the debate against a challenge. We can debate the weather till the sun sets and rises again, but it is the foundational principle of the sun that will ultimately dictate the weather, we can argue about the color of a ship passing in a harbor (teal or aquamarine), but the foundational principle is that we witnessed a boat and not a spaceship. Essentially the battle is not foundationalism vs. anti-foundationalism, rather a structured hierarchy of anti-foundationalist concepts governed by one foundationalist principle. It is here where the disciplinary anti-foundational concepts that we engage with, debate, and conclude throughout our live conjoin and form the interdisciplinarity of foundational truth.

Consistent Search of Truth

‘The truth is foundational, but perhaps can never be achieved’, that is the most common and salient critique of foundationalism, but it still does not mean that we are not governed by a foundational truth. You could go as far as to say the universe, everything in it, and possibly outside of it is all foundational to our knowledge, even though we might not have full understanding yet, such as the concept of gravity and its role in expanding the universe, at the same time keeping us grounded on a planet. The reason for interdisciplinarity in foundational truth is because there is a significant knowledge gap within a current society, and new truth adds to the foundation. This knowledge gap is outlined by the Weinsteinian ideals of the GIN and the DISC, in addition, the SOKE that is pervasive in many institutions. How do we spot this? How do we identify this? How can we use our interdisciplinarity to find actionable answers to these knowledge gaps? It comes from taking a step back from epistemological tribalism, dogma, unguided emotions, irrational and illogical behavior to look deeper at the many webs that formulate our foundational systems in life.

To find instances like this, you have to look at the recorded understandings and attempt to codify or conceptualize them through interdisciplinarity. It is difficult – because on first glance, you may see the benevolence from a specific idea, as no one intends to be maliciously pervasive in their critique. However, you can outline the issues and challenges towards knowledge and epistemology to see the challenges, even though it was not inherently intended. It is necessary to provide an example to develop this understanding.

In 2007 the Ontario Ministry of Education developed a plan to integrate pedagogical learning for First Nations, Metis, and Inuit students (FNMI) into a plan that attempted to build bridges of knowledge and close the gap that are prevalent for FNMI students in school. This is so they can build skills to enter a modern Canadian workforce and be productive members through equality and fairness. This policy that was called Building Bridges to Success for First Nation, Metis, and Inuit Students, and was developed in conjunction with Aboriginal and governmental leaders¹⁸. Even from personal experience working in the private sector in Alberta, Canada. My younger years saw recruiting trips for workers at First Nations communities. Individuals and leaders were happy getting some of the younger members involved in the workforce to help their aboriginal communities become successful and self-sufficient. For this creates an interdisciplinary bridge towards success creating positives for FNMI individuals, communities, and provides actionable answers to the knowledge gaps that have been prevalent for decades in FNMI areas through job training, economic competence, self-esteem, collaboration, and development of life skills all while be accepting of traditions.

However, a challenge to the FNMI policy came from some academics, notably from the Faculty of Education at McGill University. The study viewed the policies rhetoric as assimilationist and perpetuating the unethical doctrines of neoliberalism and capitalism that is socially detrimental to FNMI communities. They advocated for the critical change in the policy and to keep aboriginal traditions away from apparent ‘colonial’ and ‘western’ communities¹⁹. This right here is a clear example of a SOKE. What we have here is an accredited academic institution who produces ‘scientific’ research that policy relies on and what the professor relies on in relation to tenure and pay scale. They use a policy that is helpful to aboriginal communities and even addresses the FNMI cultural traditions in bridging a gap within the economy. However, through contentious rhetoric using historical conceptualizations of economic theory, hinders the positivity of this policy for FNMI, and potentially hindering the progress FNMI communities have made by perpetuating more years of despair. You might think, why does this matter? It matters because we have a suppression of knowledge about how aboriginal students in Canada can benefit from a modern economic society all while maintaining a bridge to their aboriginal culture changing the status quo in society. This only to be challenged by academics who benefit from the status quo they are ‘trying’ to reform, and want to challenge notions without accepting changes to fuel continuous issues through a lens of historical materialism. Furthermore, since the research is widely regarded with many citations and research accolades, is seen as an expert finding and can and will influence policy, which could lead to ultimately hurting FNMI communities they claim to be helping.

Another example has to do with COVID-19. The claim from health officials were that anti-lockdown protests were troubling to the rise in COVID-19 cases, disavowing protest for anti-lockdown measures²⁰. However, during a Congressional House meeting, top health officials would not admit that Black Lives Matter Protests were a direct cause for a surge (which was seen) in COVID-19 cases. Instead, health officials agreed with a study done by economists (not health professionals) who use cell phone data to determine a spread of a virus, through use of common night time location²¹ that social distancing could be achieved therefore, no spread. However, when discussing a virus, and the health officials say that going to one protest is irresponsible, while going to another is perfectly fine, is clear and blatant hypocrisy that is dangerous. Furthermore, you have a house member Carolyn Maloney who entered this NBER study in a congressional hearing on July 31st, a study that was not peer-reviewed, weak citations, massive methodological flaws, and even massive limitations where the authors of the study even admit correlating cell phone home data to where individuals were, presents clear limitations and are subject to scrutiny.

“Thank you. Without objection, I would like to place two reports into the record. One is from Forbes and it’s entitled, “Researchers say protests did not increase COVID-19 spread, but Republicans are still blaming them.” This is one report. And I have in my hand here, I have a report in a study from the National Bureau of Economics Research that was published last month and this study found that there was no connection between Black Lives Matter and protests in recent months and increased spread of the coronavirus. So, without objection, I would like to place both of these studies into the record.”²²

This is a SOKE on so many levels from the institution of media, government, and public health officials oppressing logical and reasonable knowledge for the express consent of pushing an agenda narrative. Not to mention a house representative calling without objection, a faulty study being placed in the record, with no recourse allowed to challenge. I commend Michael Powell the reporter for The New York Times for at least bringing attention to the hypocrisy that was on display.

These two examples provide that SOKE’s are present within our institutions. They are pervasive within the leaders of our institutions and their stimulus is maintaining the status quo for their livelihoods, all while producing misleading research lacking logic or epistemological coherency to control and effect the narrative of change without actually reforming the status quo. The term dangerous should not be used lightly, but it is needed considering without changing the economic framework for FNMI individuals in Canada, the status quo of alcoholism, suicide, and the countless indigenous women who go missing, raped, and murdered will continue with SOKE’s like this in place. In addition, all protesters may have contributed to the rise in COVID-19 cases which will cause deaths to elderly patients and members of minority communities who are disproportionally affected. Cases of elderly death which were ignored due to these measures in nursing homes, such as in places like New York under Governor Andrew Cuomo, or in Michigan under Governor Gretchen Whitmer, even in Ontario under Premier Doug Ford through a lack of response federally by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau^g.

How do we Make Sense of This? An Interdisciplinary Reformation Framework.

When it’s said the need for rational, logical, and effective knowledge to answer complex questions is important and that enhancing our interdisciplinarity is needed. No one is being facetious; it could be a matter of life and death in a lot of cases. Unlike flawed studies, an implication of SOKE’s could cause an increase in crime, death, suicide, and general poor wellbeing since knowledge and epistemology are not being discussed effectively with logical and rational nuance.

We are on the precipice of reformation within our learning, life, and society, and only we can change the course of what history will say about our path toward an epistemic understanding about our world. At this point, it is relevant to summarize ten lessons of interdisciplinarity that will help guide you into the future for knowledge and epistemological attainment:

1. Interdisciplinarity is inherent, logical, and foundational to humans.
2. Interdisciplinarity can provide answers to questions outside of disciplinary realms.
3. Foundational knowledge governs anti-foundational principles.
4. Systematic Oppression of Knowledge and Epistemology (SOKE) is present in our institutions, they must be called out and remedied.
5. Interdisciplinarity is quantifiable providing a sense of foundational knowledge towards a previous phenomenon.
6. Continuous research can be done effectively with interdisciplinarity so long as the goal is to continue to find answers.
7. Enlightenment Era principles of logic, reason, liberty, and scientific discovery must be viewed as a path to knowledge.
8. Opposing ideals are welcome, only if they enhance logic and reason.
9. Dogmatic principles outside of logic and reason create a religiosity instilling a false prophet narrative around knowledge is dangerous and cannot continue.
10. Interdisciplinarity is a tool that can be used by an individual to enhance their capabilities in finding knowledge.

Think of these ten lessons next time you are in a meeting, a classroom, a debate, a discussion with family or friends, every time you are unsure if what you are going to say will be beneficial to the conversation and think. Even if you cannot remember all of the ten lessons, you can shake off the nerves, get the attention of individuals, and out loud with confidence ask “Have we looked at this logically and rationally through a framework of interdisciplinarity?”

In summation, this sews the reformation of interdisciplinarity. From humble beginnings in ancient times as a concept in many forms, to a research and methodological phenomenon, to an inherent and foundational truth towards how we manage ourselves and learning, life, and society we shape around us. A quote from Canadian Psychologist Jordan Peterson provides amazing insight to a conceptualization and framework for how interdisciplinarity can be shaped for ourselves and for others.

“When we look at the world, we perceive only what is enough for our plans and actions to work and for us to get by. What we inhibit, then, is this ‘enough’. That is a radical, functional, unconscious simplification of the world – and it’s almost impossible for us not to mistake it for the world itself. But the objects we see are not simply there, in the world, for our simple, direct perceiving. They exist in a complex, multi-dimensional relationship to one another, not as self-evidently separate, bounded, independent objects. We perceive not them, but their function and utility and, in doing so, we make them sufficiently simple for sufficient understanding. It is for this reason that we must precise our aim. Absent that, we drown in the complexity of the world.”²³

The world is complex, and it is scary to navigate the waters of learning, life, and society. However, interdisciplinarity is a beacon, a lighthouse in a rainstorm, regardless of challenges, disputes and suppression, you always have interdisciplinarity and no one can take that away. Challenges have always been around from the earliest days of human migration from the continent of Africa to the present technological society we live in. The navigation comes from your ability to think logically, to obtain actionable answers, and connect those answers together to form a foundational understanding moving forward. For that, the interdisciplinarity reformation is yours now – to have and carry on.