No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the posi

Today many of us adhere to the idea that in contemporary conditions it is impossible to advance significantly in any field of study unless it uses and absorbs knowledge and experience from outside that field. Although this claim seems to be coherent and even persuasive, I cannot concur with it due to the reasons which will be discussed in details below.

To begin with, contemporary science has become complex and intricate; in fact, almost all fields of research are interwoven with each other. This was inevitable step which has allowed us to advance our understanding of the world and overcome stalemates. For instance, at the beginning of the XX century such science as astronomy faced a stalemate because the power of telescopes which may be built on the planet surface were limited. In other words, astronomers were not able to find new data via old methods. The problem was solved through usage of knowledge and experience of other fields of science, for instance, physics and chemistry. As a result, new kinds of astronomic equipment were created which allowed the scholars to study atmospheres of other planets, the elements of starts etc. This is one example of many others which demonstrates that knowledge from other fields may indeed help to advance a study. However, may we aver that this is true for all fields of our endeavor?

Perhaps, the answer on this question is “no” because some fields are self-sufficient and develop independently from other fields. Probably, the most striking example may be found in physics and math. For instance, physics, in particular, physics of elementary particles seems to go ahead of today’s science; its main method of research is mental experiment, which is performed in minds of scholars. In fact, such a great discovery of modern physics as Higgs boson was achieved without usage of knowledge of other fields. In mathematics we may observe similar situation: when the advancement of the science is the result of the work which is done inside the field.

Furthermore, sometimes even incorporation of knowledge and experience from outside the field of endeavor may not contribute to the advancement of a study. For example, we may take a look at scientists' attempt to build a working quantum computer. Although scholars who try to overcome the stalemate have used knowledge from chemistry, physics and math, they have not managed to create a workable item. In fact, some researchers claim that this problem cannot be conquered and thus the advancement in the field is literally impossible. This stance illustrates that the incorporation of knowledge may not lead to the advancement at that field.

In conclusion, although today's science has becoming more and more complex and many of its fields are interwoven with each other; the incorporation of the knowledge and experience from outside fields may and may not advance the study. Therefore, I disagree with the prompt.