There is currently aboard a new wave of appreciation for breadth of knowledge. Curricula at universities and colleges and programs in federal agencies extol the virtues of a broad education. For scientists who work in specialized jobs, it is a pleasure to escape in our spare time to read broadly in fields distant from our own. Some of us have made interdisciplinary study in our occupation, which is no surprise, because much of the intellectual action in our society today lies at the interfaces between traditional disciplines. Environmental science is a good example, because it frequently requires us to be conversant in several different sciences and even some unscientific fields.
Experiencing this breadth of knowledge is stimulating, but so is delving deeply into a subject. Both are wonderful experiences that are complementary practical and aesthetic ways. They are like viewing the marvelous sculpture of knowledge in two different ways. Look at the sculpture from one perspective and you see the piece in its entirety, how its components connect to give it form, balance, and symmetry. From another viewpoint you see its detail, depth and mass. There is no need to choose between these two perspectives in art. To do so would subtract from the totality of the figure.
So it is with science. Sometimes we gaze through a subject and are reluctant to stop for too much detail. As chemists, we are fascinated by computer science or molecular genetics, but not enough to become an expert. Or we may be interested in an analytical technique but not enough to stay at its cutting edge. At other times, we become immersed in the detail of a subject and see its beauty in an entirely different way than when we browse. It is as if we penetrate the surface of the sculpture and pass through the crystal structure to the molecular level where the code for the entire structure is revealed.
Unfortunately, in our zeal for breadth or depth, we often feel that it is necessary to diminish the value of the other. Specialists are sometimes ridiculed with named such as “nerd” or “technocrats”, generalists are often criticized for being too “soft” or knowing too little about any one thing. Both are ludicrous accusations that deny a part of the reality of environmental science. Let us not be divided by our passion for depth or breadth. The beauty that awaits us on either route is too precious to stifle, too wonderful to diminish by bickering.
1.From a broad education to interdisciplinary study, we can see( ).
2.The commentator would say that the totality of the sculpture of knowledge( ).
3.Just because we become engrossed in the detail of a subject, according to the comment, does not mean that we( ).
4.It is commentator’s contention that neither specialists nor generalist( ).
5.Which of the following can be the best title of the passage?