Let us suppose that an ichthyologist is exploring the life of the ocean. He casts a net into the water and brings up a fishy assortment. Surveying his catch, he proceeds in the usual manner of a scientist to systematise what it reveals. He arrives at two generalisations: (1) No sea-creature is less than two inches long. (2) All sea-creatures have gills. These are both true of his catch, and he assumes tentatively that they will remain true however often he repeats it.
Sir Arthur Eddington
I was also talking to scientists from very different disciplines today (pedagogy, computer science, philosophy, psychology, biology, …). I realized again how much I love interdisciplinary knowledge exchange despite the challenges: The stimulation, the different methods, perspectives, aims and success criteria. It shows you your own expertise (which is often invisible if you work and improve among peers) — and your strengths and weaknesses.
The experiment might be the “royal road” to knowledge (in psychology!), but we are often blind that this “royal road” might not allow you to see the whole landscape. And “royalty” has its dark sides — incest, madness, and narrow-mindedness, rarely beneficial to progress.
Thus I can highly recommend interdisciplinary exchange — whether in formal interdisciplinary projects, or more informal in teaching courses or privately organized conferences (e.g., the MinD-Akademie [German, a student organized meeting under a specific topic, but open to students and scientists from all disciplines]).