Confusion, Jerry A. 44). Hence neuroscience is an example

Confusion, commonly has negative connotations, relating to ideas such as disagreement and uncertainty.  An important question to consider is to how does confusion affect knowledge production? Although often it can prevent knowledge production in interdisciplinary settings due to different styles of thought, research traditions, techniques and discipline specific language among different academic disciplines (Jacobs, Jerry A. 47), it can also be a stimulus for conducting and developing new research projects in an attempt to clarify the disagreements and uncertainties. This brings another question forward, to what extent does language and methodology affect the production of knowledge? The term interdisciplinarity covers several distinct terms; multidisciplinarity (separate disciplines collaborating), transdisciplinary (the differences between disciplines are dissolved) and cross disciplinarity (interpreting one disciplines in term of a different one) (Bastian, Sue, 75). In this essay interdisciplinarity will be defined as the communication and collaboration among academic disciplines (Jacobs, Jerry A. 44). Hence neuroscience is an example of an interdisciplinary discipline as it combines the different natural sciences and mathematics to gain new knowledge. Aside from established disciplines found at universities, there is also interdisciplinary research such as the interdisciplinary approach at the archeological site in Vin?a. Interdisciplinary approaches to the productions of knowledge do not only lead to confusion. It can be assumed that an interdisciplinary approach to research can lead to a broader understanding in the production of knowledge. The archeological site in Vin?a, is an example of interdisciplinary research where experts from various disciplines such as archeology, geophysics, chemistry and paleobotany corporate to become the main point of interdisciplinary research in Serbia (Tasic, Nenad.). The research conducted at this site, helped to attain data on various aspects of the previous civilization, for example for archaeozoology, where the relationship of humans and animals is investigated based on bones found at the site (Tasic, Nenad.). This example showcases how the different research techniques produced new historical knowledge, the personal knowledge of the experts was used to produce data that even though subject specific became shared knowledge, understandable for the other experts and so being able to combine the knowledge gained to produce an extensive report on the archeological site producing new knowledge in the area of knowledge of history and natural sciences about Vin?a. In this case confusion was not present and did not hinder knowledge production. On the other hand discipline specific language of a distinct area of knowledge can lead to confusion slowing down the process of knowledge being gained. Experts of the individual fields in the Vin?a archaeological site most likely had to put more effort into transforming there personal knowledge from their fields to shared knowledge to collaborate on techniques used to gather data and to provide conclusions that experts from different fields agreed on. Confusion amongst these experts may have provoked further research, to gain more knowledge on the archeological site and to collaborate further to most likely become acquainted with the discipline specific language in other area of knowledge. The collected data and the continuous study of the site (Tasic, Nenad.) proves the success of this project and illustrates how interdisciplinary research can be successful. The similar methodologies amongst the different branches of natural sciences prevent confusion from occuring.  An example of an established interdisciplinary study is neuroscience. The study of the brain that combines multiple areas of knowledge but mainly the different natural sciences; biology, physics and chemistry (Nordqvist, Christian).  Natural sciences are referred to as being logical and rational, since they are strictly methodological (Bastian, Sue). Yet they require imagination and sense perception for scientists to question what they observe to produce a hypothesis in the beginning stages of the methodology. Hence the natural sciences do not fit to either empirical or rational way of knowing (Bastian, Sue), instead combine the two to gain knowledge about the hypothesis. In this case studying the brain by chemists, biologists and physicists helps to provide a fuller understanding of the complex organ by producing knowledge that combines the understanding of the chemical reactions that occur within the brain and furthermore how they affect the rest of the human physiology. Since all sciences follow the same step by step methodology the interdisciplinary approach to the production of knowledge most likely does not lead to confusion as the researchers are taught the same approach to conducting research hence leading to a similar conclusions. Confirmation bias may occur within the scientific methodology leading to disagreement among researchers on their findings, which cause confusion. Likewise to belief, confirmation bias strives to find opinions that prove one’s findings to be true. When doubt forms from a belief, we only seek for opinions that ensure our belief to be true (Bastian, Sue). ?Once we find the opinion we want to hear, we are satisfied, so we do not see the need to further inquire whether this belief is true or false. Confirmation bias links to belief, since it aims to prove a theory to be scientific by interpreting one’s finding in a way that proves one’s beliefs to be true. Therefore when experts from different academic disciplines collaborate even though they are in the same area of knowledge, they may not come to a single conclusion of their research as they may interpret the information based on their previous personal knowledge as this is what they believe to be true. Leading to an unclear conclusion. Researchers may also alter data during the testing stage, or alter the variables to produce data so that the results obtained follow their beliefs. This may lead to confusion as different data may be obtained by different experts from different academic disciplines even though the initial methodology was identical. Thus creating confusion when producing knowledge about the brain, where results are obtained that do not showcase a general trend, creating difficulty to coming to consensus among the researchers. On the other hand, falsification in the final stages of the scientific methodology may prevent confusion to the production of knowledge within neuroscience (Bastian, Sue). Since both academic disciplines follow the strict methodology of natural sciences, the conclusion drawn by the experts based on the testing stage, they use falsification to acquire knowledge whether what they have found can be labeled as “true”. Since nothing can be proven to be fully true or certain, scientists go out of their way to test their method by proving it false (Bastian, Sue). During these tests they gather more knowledge about the given hypothesis. This method helps to find which results and/or hypothesis can not be labeled as scientific theories. If a hypothesis stays true through a series of tests it can be labeled as a scientific theory that then can be given specific laws, which show when this theory proves to work giving a “correct” answer (Bastian, Sue). If a hypothesis cannot undergo the process of falsification (because the hypothesis cannot be tested), it can not be labeled as a scientific theory. Hence falsification aims to prove a hypothesis false, to show it is true. This step in the scientific methodology helps to resolve the miscommunication that may lead to confusion among different academic disciplines when acquiring knowledge where confirmation bias has caused results from the testing stages to be altered or interpreted based on personal belief. In summary interdisciplinary studies do not always lead to confusion. The production of knowledge through interdisciplinary studies has experts from different academic disciplines collaborate to research and conclude results, the personal knowledge enables knowledge to be gained when it becomes shared knowledge amongst disciplines with various specific terminology and research techniques. So there is an overlap of knowledge amongst different areas of knowledge. Similarly when researchers from an established interdisciplinary discipline work together they too have to be able to use there personal knowledge to produce results and then conclude on them, the shared knowledge amongst the researchers illustrates the dissolving of barriers between disciplines. On the other hand, the process of discussing results among experts from different academic disciplines, may lead to confusion since they may find it difficult to communicate the knowledge they possess due to discipline specific language and methodologies to other experts, hence leading to confusion and diverse conclusions. However confusion amongst experts from various disciplines may lead to further research and collaboration, most likely improving communication and therefore allowing for knowledge to be gained.