Advertisement

Disciplines and Approaches

Chapter
  • 303 Downloads
Part of the New Directions in the Philosophy of Science book series (NDPS)

Abstract

In this chapter, the most common ways of distinguishing between branches of science are criticised for focusing too narrowly on a few dimensions of a highly complex phenomenon. Some usually neglected aspects are pointed out, which are required for a more adequate account of disciplinarity. The complexity of disciplines, however, renders an adequate concept hereof more or less useless as the foundation for analyses of specific cases of interdisciplinarity. “Discipline” and related concepts are compared to the alternative “approach”, which, it is argued, will serve us better as the basic unit of analyses of scientific crossbreeding. The thought that disciplines should be considered as bundles (of bundles) of approaches is discussed and some consequences are drawn.

Keywords

Interfield Theories Epistemic Aspects Action Science Approach Interdisciplinary Activities Discussion Hereof 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aldrich, John H. 2014. Interdisciplinarity. New York: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes, Barry. 1974. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1977. Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. Bechtel, William, ed. 1986. Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  5. Bloor, David. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, Donald T. 1969. Ethnocentrism of Disciplines and the Fish-Scale Model of Omniscience. In Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, ed. Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  7. Carp, Joshua. 2012. The Secret Lives of Experiments: Methods Reporting in the fMRI Literature. NeuroImage 63: 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, Harry M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2002. The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Science 32 (2): 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darden, Lindley, and Nancy Maull. 1977. Interfield Theories. Philosophy of Science 44 (1): 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. EC. 2014. Guidance for Evaluators of Horizon 2020 Proposals. [pdf]. EC. Last modified 26 September 2014. Accessed 8 Januray. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/pse/h2020-evaluation-faq_en.pdf.
  12. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York; Great Britain: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Galison, Peter. 2008. Ten Problems in History and Philosophy of Science. Isis 99 (1): 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gigerenzer, Gerd, Zeno Swijtink, Theodore Porter, Lorraine Daston, John Beatty, and Lorenz Kruger. 1989. The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life (Ideas in Context). Vol. 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hacking, Ian. 2014. Why is There Philosophy of Mathematics at All? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hull, David L. 1982. Exemplars and Scientific Change. In Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kellert, Stephen H. 2009. Borrowed Knowledge: Chaos Theory and the Challange of Learning Across Desciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kitcher, Patricia. 1992. Freud’s Dream: A Complete Interdisciplinary Science of Mind. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2007. Freud’s Interdisciplinary Fiasco. In The Prehistory of Cognitive Science, ed. Andrew Brook, 230–249. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Kockelmans, Joseph J., ed. 1979a. Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1979b. Science and Discipline: Some Historical and Critical Reflections. In Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education, ed. Joseph J. Kockelmans. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science: Foundations of the Unity of Science V. 2, No. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Foundations of the Unity of Science, V. 2, No. 2. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakatos, Imre, and Alan Musgrave. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Margolis, Eric, and Stephen Laurence. 1999. Concepts: Core Readings. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nissani, Moti. 1997. Ten Cheers for Interdisciplinarity: The Case for Interdisciplinary Knowledge and Research. Social Science Journal 34 (2): 201–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shapere, Dudley. 1974. Galileo: A Philosophical Study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 1984. Reason and the Search for Knowledge: Investigations in the Philosophy of Science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Sherif, Muzafer. 1979. Crossdisciplinary Coordination in the Social Sciences. In Interdisciplinarity and Higher Education, ed. Joseph J. Kockelmans. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Toulmin, Stephen. 1972. Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  35. Turner, Stephen. 2000. What are Disciplines? And How is Interdisciplinarity Different? In Practising Interdisciplinarity, ed. Peter Weingart and Nico Stehr. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations