Consider studying natural phenomena as akin to the translation of an ancient text written in an unknown script: The individual symbols or characters are all relevant and interesting as isolated particulars, but even more so as components of a principled system in which they are enmeshed and find their meaning, which explains their observed interrelationships. A symbol’s meaning is informed by the other symbols which surround it. These relationships form the wider context in which the particulars are embedded; their individual meanings are subject to the broader scope of the statement they exist within. In grasping the role of the particular we must understand the greater principles at play. Then, and only then, we can arrive at a complete idea of what that symbol is, of what it means in that context.
This would not be possible to glean from studying a symbol in isolation, or in a more narrow context. The greater the quantity of meaningful and legible text we have available to us the more readily and assuredly the ordering principles will make themselves known to us. Assuming, that is, we have the good sense to actually utilize the totality of the text.
Specialization in science and philosophy, when taken to the asinine extremes we see in our institutions today, is rather like finding a trove of ancient texts in an unknown language, deciding to pick a small number of characters or symbols, and to study only that subset to the exclusion of all others.
Further, it is tolerated—even encouraged!—to viciously combat other intellectuals who have taken to studying a different subsection of the symbols, should they dare speak of the possible meaning of your chosen symbols. As if a “non-expert” could know anything of your symbols! Do you perceive the problem? Without the ability to access, consider, and discuss the totality of the text we cripple ourselves terribly. If the insanity and stupidity of this approach is not apparent, I fear any further elaboration would be in vain.