I would like to delve into an interesting query? Is the number of sciences possible predefined? And more specifically-have we already discovered all the "major" sciences so we don't have room for any more?
How about complexity? Sure we see a lot of complex things around us, so, why don't we invent a new science about them? Or is it better to "stick to the old" because it had worked so well in the past? I would like to explore the question "Can there be a new science for things we everyday see constantly with all of our senses but don't know what forces shape them?" Like currents, patterns, social change, Life? All they have the same property we can well recognize-they are complex but does it imply the need of a new science or is it better to "leave them be as they are" and shut the door for any new field of exploration because we have enough old sciences and there is really no room for anything new?
I would just like to reflect on the question has science became biased by now because there are "enough"(according to the subjective criteria of some researchers)sciences already and we don't "need" new ones even if there are phenomena which became accessible only after the development of other sciences and can just now begin to be uncovered for our knowledge(I envision here the behaviour of complex systems)? Or is it better to follow the "piece by piece" approach and regard each science by its own field of investigation adopting the view that cross-referencing the sciences and searching for a common phenomenon amongst them is causa perduta?
I wonder which approach a philosophically inclined scientist should take?
P.S.Thank you for your replies in advance.