Right. But, philosophically, the issue is that the true is the whole (i.e., all of knowledge). The true is not fragmented; truth is not made of isolated buckets. Nothing makes sense except in light of everything else we know; an item of knowledge not integrated with other things we know is useless, not understood — and not really even knowledge; such a thing does not exist.
In “Why Ecology Needs Natural History” (American Scientist), John G.t. Anderson writes: “The problems before us are nontrivial and will not be met by simple solutions. The loss of influence of natural history is both symptomatic and causative of changes in our practice of science and our view of nature. In the past 50 years, we have chosen to reward short-term, highly focused studies in our science and the dramatic and the exotic in our view of nature. This trend has led to some useful discoveries and a degree of ecological appreciation, but it isn’t enough.”