The speaker asserts that no field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field. I fundamentally agree. In my point of view, however, I tend to hold that under most circumstances, the knowledge and experience from outside that field play a vital role in the advancement of that field.
  I concede that sometimes knowledge and experience from life or other fields will mislead the study of one certain field. Cause the senses of human beings are sometimes incorrect and the information from other fields is not necessarily comparable to one certain field. For example, Aristoteles asserted that the falling speed was proportional to its weight, which came from our senses and experience in life. But it was wrong factually. Until Galileo overthrowed the theory by experiment, the assertion had misled people for hundrands of years. When reachers want to utilize the knowledge and experience from other fields, it is necessary for them to confirm it is correct first.
   However, the study of one certain field need to be based on the conclusions of other fields. An exceptional scientist should know much about knowledge relatent to his or her own study. For example, Crick and Watson who were both biologists advanced the theory of DNA's two helical structure in 1950's. And they didn't make breakthrough until they saw the X-ray photo of DNA which was made by other physicist. They based their theory on the X-ray photo of DNA and corrected their former wrong thoughts. With the help from severial physicists, mathematicians and chemists, they ahieved a great goal in history.
  Finally,  people have to learn about knowledge and experience from outside their fields in order to solve problems better. The knowledge and experience from other fields is a usuful and necessary tool to help people make breakthrough in their fileds. For example, it is unimpeachable that all physicists are really good at math and grasp some basic knowledge in philosophy.  In this case, math is a necessary tool for physicist to calculate and philosophical thoughts can lead him or her to think deeply.  For example, there are large numbers of theories that are from math and philosophy like Newton's laws and Relativity.
  To sum up, I concede the knowledge and experience for other field is not usuful or correct all the time to the study of a certain field. However, without them, it is nearly impossible for a field to advance significantly. I fundamentally agree that, as the speaker says, no field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field.