People working in various scholarly disciplines have been divided into two camps: the lumpers and the splitters. Lumpers create relatively broad categories and splitters create more narrow categories. Both create categories, classifications, or taxonomies, however, because that is what scholars or scientists do.
There are two common mistakes. One mistake is to claim that science and religion are in eternal conflict or in a state of war. The
To be lifted to the summit of the World Trade Center is to be lifted out of the city’s grasp. One’s body is no longer clasped by the streets that turn and return it according to an anonymous law; nor is it possessed, whether as player or played, by the rumble of so many differences and by the nervousness of New York City traffic. When one goes up there, he leaves behind the mass that carries off and mixes up in itself any identity of authors or spectators. As Icarus flying above these waters, he can ignore the devices of Daedalus in mobile and endless labyrinths far below.
The central figures in the discovery of “child abuse” were pediatric radiologists, whose research reports, published in a variety of professional journals for over a decade and a half, demonstrates an increasing willingness to “see” and define child abuse as a distinct medical entity. Why pediatric radiologists? Why not emergency room physicians, who frequently saw injured children, or surgeons or internists who treated their injuries?
Spencer was wrong. There can never be a science of science because there be can be no single, unifying observation–or an observation without a blind spot. All observations are partial, and they all reduce the complexity of whatever they are supposed to be observing. All we can ever have is a plurality of partial knowledges, and these ways of seeing can not be harmonized.
If we wish, we may observe the increased specialization of science or academic research through a moral lens. For example, if we consider the science