Western science resolves itself into certain "laws" that describe the natural world. These laws are makeshift descriptions of the manner in which physical reality appears to operate, but they are often regarded by Western scientists as inviolable. Phenomena that fall outside the prescribed patterns of behavior are said to be "anomalies," which can be disregarded when explaining how the physical universe functions. Eventually, of course, the Western scientist must deal with the so-called anomalies. These phenomena form an increasingly large body of knowledge and facts that cannot be explained using the acceptable paradigm into which the rest of scientific knowledge is deposited.
-Vine Deloria Jr., Power Place Equal Personality
Vine Deloria Jr., my #goals, my hero, was right about a lot of things but he was wrong when he said that "eventually Western scientist must deal with the so-called anomalies." They don't got to deal with shit. They can just say that it isn't their "job" to figure it out. "I will leave that work for the philosophers," they will say. But trust and believe philosophers, in an attempt to be "objective" like the sciences will say that people who try to do that work aren't philosophers. They will hand the job off to some people in another field. They will probably hand it off to people in the social sciences who will have no theoretical framework for investigating the issue because they aren't philosophers.
Sounds fucked up right?
I'm not done.
Not only is everybody tryna deny responsibility, but they also not talking to each other. Because of "intellectual disagreements" they stay in their clique and rarely ever use interdisciplinary approaches. Keep in mind what Deloria said. The questions or phenomena that they "cannot" explain are really fucking important. They are so important that they have to touch it during some point in their career. That don't mean they gon deal with it though. If you haven't guessed it already they will accidentally stumble upon problems and proceed to make sense of it by, "fit in the objective experimental box of mechanical cause and effect (Deloria)", Because everybody act like they can't talk to each other they will just end up repeating what someone else has already said before about the subject. The difference is that they will cash it out in a new and "innovative" way by speaking on the issue using a different framework and they will use different terminology.
On top of all that, (yes, there is more) academics will say, "you have to limit the scope of your paper." If you want to write a dissertation you gotta be able to force natural experience and knowledge into predetermined categories that ultimately fail to describe or explain anything. If you want to succeed in academia, you gotta learn how to refrain talking about intangibles. You can't make connections necessary to show unity in the world. You can't talk about the world beyond the senses. You can't talk about life force and spirituality. I mean you can, but its gon cripple your chances of being picked in the job market because as I explained before, they dont like that shit.
In short, academics really don't be doing nuthin. In fact, I would go as far as to say that in order to "play the game" and navigate through the establishment, you gotta learn how to "misplace concreteness- absolutize what are but tenuous conclusions (Deloria)".