MOST public institutions of higher learning in the country began their new semester with new students enrolling at the beginning of June.
These students would take courses according to their respective faculties.
These faculties mostly follow an age-old classification based on certain specialised “fields of knowledge”. We have faculties (or “schools” in certain universities) in science, social science, engineering, law, medicine, pharmacy, economics, education and the likes.
Some universities would go further by having specialised faculties for specific areas of knowledge.
For example, if an undergraduate wanting to do a course in chemistry, he or she would enrol under the faculty of science.
The student would then take relevant courses in order to obtain a degree after accumulating a designated number of credits.
The student would then go on to become a chemistry graduate.
This system has been in operation in almost all parts of the world for decades and perhaps centuries.
And the rule is, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.
But is this rule applicable in the 21st century? How far is the classical classification of knowledge still relevant today? Would the current classification of knowledge help us in facing the challenges of the new century which has a different set of rules? Essentially, we like to organise things. We prefer order out of chaos. That is why we classify knowledge into beautifully specialised areas, each with its own domain. These “domains” would occasionally overlap other domains creating a hybrid form of specialisation.
Examples include areas such as geochemistry (geology and chemistry), biophysics (biology and physics), biochemistry (biology and chemistry), archaeology (history and geology) and others. The fact is that these classifications are fashioned after traditional approach to knowledge.
In the past, advancement of knowledge was seen as “diverging”, in that the more we know about a particular field, the more specialised we become. In other words, a specialised person in a particular area of knowledge is seen as independent of other areas of knowledge.
That is why today we have so many branches of knowledge, in particular in the area of science. We have today specialisations in hydrology, meteorology, ornithology and many others. Even these areas could further be refined into more specialised fields.
The diverging trend that began with the golden age of science several centuries ago sees the classification of knowledge into what we have today. This has led to universities utilising the same method of classification when it comes to faculties and departments.
However, it is important at this juncture that we realise that today, the trend is no longer diverging. Knowledge today is beginning to converge with one another.
There are four areas of knowledge that have been identified as being the major areas in this century. They are genomics, robotics, information and communication technology (ICT) and nanoengineering.
Genomics would have easily fallen under the category of biology, robotics under mechanical engineering, ICT under computing science and nanoengineering under physics. In truth however, such classifications no longer work.
When scientists started on the Human Genome Project in the early part of 1990s, the project was expected to be completed in fifteen years. However, with the assistance of mathematicians, computer scientists and statisticians, the project was completed way before schedule.
What is interesting to note is that ICT has helped the advancement made in the area of genomics by providing the means for geneticists to store and process the huge amount of data from the Human Genome Project as well as providing the medium for communication among scientists stationed in various laboratories across the continents.
At the same time, this project has also allowed for advancements to be made in the area of ICT in that better ways for storing, analysing, processing and communicating data were found.
This is only one of the many examples as to how knowledge is converging, where one needs the assistance of others in order to advance, while at the same time, contributing to the advancement of other areas of knowledge.
Let us take a look at another area, that is robotics.
Much progress has been made in this area of late. At the Massachussetts Institute of Technology, a computer scientist reported that she was able to create a robot named “Kismet” that could mimic human facial expressions. The robot is programmed with the capacity to change and grow through social interactions with its environment.
The latest development in Kyoto, Japan is also equally interesting, whereby it was reported that a humanoid robot, “SIG-II” which has silicone-made ears is able to differentiate between three human voices when three people speak at the same time.
Such developments in robotics require knowledge in ICT in order for the robots to process, analyse and store data that they “hear” and “see”. In other words, a learning robot. Nanoengineering is also crucial in the development of robotics as this field would provide robotics with the smart material needed to build smart robots.
There are many more examples that could indeed be shared with the convergence of knowledge. This convergence has also resulted in the convergence of technology.
When knowledge and technology converge with one another, it leaves one with a question of whether the classical classification of knowledge based on the diverging trend of knowledge of the past is still relevant in this day and age? It is noted that in Islam, all branches of knowledge is important. Classification of knowledge is purely for the sake of identification. The bottom line is that there must be Muslims who endeavour to acquire all important areas of knowledge.
Islam acknowledges the fact that the advancement of knowledge is a dynamic process. New knowledge are developed. Some of the old findings become irrelevant. In fact, some areas of knowledge become obsolete with the “creation” of new ones.
During the Prophet’s time, to take an example, he encouraged the pursuit of all branches of knowledge except for astrology which goes against the precepts of Islam.
As such, we note that beginning with the time of the Prophet until about the 12th century, many branches of knowledge such as astronomy, medicine, chemistry, geology, botany, philosophy, mathematics and many others began to flourish. These branches of knowledge began to expand and develop into the fields that we know and embrace today.
Now we are at the crossroads where new forms of knowledge are beginning to develop. Hybrids of “classical” knowledge are beginning to intertwine with one another creating new unchartered fields. We now have areas unheard of before such as bioinformatics, nanorobotics, nanopharmacy, nanomedicine and countless others.
Are we to limit ourselves with the classical compartmentalisation of knowledge without taking into account the developments in the areas of knowledge? If we do that, then we are at risk of being antiquated. Doubtless antiques are priceless, but not much can be done with antiques and not many people could afford them.
It is imperative that we begin to realise the importance of thinking outside the “classical” box. Therefore, the new generation of students should be given the much needed exposure to the new areas of knowledge that we have today. It is best perhaps to ponder upon what Sayyidina Umar al-Khattab, one of the Prophet’s greatest companions, said: “Teach your children with the knowledge of the here and now, for they are born in an era which is no longer yours”.