Advertisement

The Relevance of Philosophy

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

Abstract

In this chapter, opinions for and against the relevance of philosophy of science to the study of interdisciplinarity are discussed. To some the relevance of philosophy may seem so obvious that it is hardly worth discussing. Others are of different opinion, though. Some arguments of the latter group are presented as well as some philosophical examples which speak strongly in favour of the former position.

References

  1. Aldrich, John H. 2014. Interdisciplinarity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, Hanne, and Susann Wagenknecht. 2013. Epistemic Dependence in Interdisciplinary Groups. Synthese 190: 1881–1898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0172-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes, Barry. 1977. Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1982. T.S. Kuhn and Social Science: Theoretical Traditions in the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloor, David. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, James Robert. 1984. In Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, The University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, ed. Robert E. Butts, vol. 25. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cartwright, Nancy. 1999. The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Frodeman, Robert. 2013. Philosophy Dedisciplined. Synthese 190: 1917–1936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0181-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fuller, Steve. 2010. Deviant Interdisciplinarity. In The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, ed. Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein, and Carl Mitcham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Giere, Ronald N. 1999. Science without Laws, Science and Its Conceptual Foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2006. Perspectival Pluralism. In Scientific Pluralism, ed. Stephen H. Kellert, Helen Longino, and C. Kenneth Waters, 25–41. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin, Richard M. 1967. A Growth Cycle. In Socialism, Capitalism and Economic Growth, ed. C.H. Feinstein, 54–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hesse, Mary B. 1963. Models and Analogies in Science. Newman History and Philosophy of Science Series. London; New York: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar
  17. Hoffmann, Michael H.G., Jan C. Schmidt, and Nancy J. Nersessian. 2013. Philosophy of and as Interdisciplinarity. Synthese 190 (11): 1857–1864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0214-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holbrook, J. Britt. 2013. What is Interdisciplinary Communication? Reflections on the Very Idea of Disciplinary Integration. Synthese 190: 1865–1879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0179-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kellert, Stephen H. 2009. Borrowed Knowledge: Chaos Theory and the Challange of Learning Across Desciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kellert, Stephen H., Helen Longino, and C. Kenneth Waters, eds. 2006. Scientific Pluralism, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kitcher, Patricia. 1992. Freud’s Dream: A Complete Interdisciplinary Science of Mind. Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2007. Freud’s Interdisciplinary Fiasco. In The Prehistory of Cognitive Science, ed. Andrew Brook, 230–249. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Klein, Julie Thompson. 2008. Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research—A Literature Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (2S): S116–S123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford; New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. ———. 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
  28. Kuklick, Bruce. 2001. A History of Philosophy in America, 1720–2000. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Laudan, Larry. 1984. The Pseudo-Science of Science? In Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, ed. James Robert Brown, 41–74. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Longino, Helen. 2006. Theoretical Pluralism and the Scientific Study of Behaviour. In Scientific Pluralism, ed. Stephen H. Kellert, Helen Longino, and C. Kenneth Waters, 102–131. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell, Sandra D. 2002. Integrative Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 17 (1): 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ———. 2003. Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell, Sandra D., Lorraine Daston, Gerd Gigerenzer, Nevin Sesardic, and Peter Sloep. 1997. The Why’s and How’s of Interdisciplinarity. In Human by Nature: Between Biology and the Social Sciences, ed. Peter Weingart, Sandra D. Mitchell, Peter J. Richerson, and Sabine Maasen, 103–150. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. Penny, David. 2015. Epigenetics, Darwin, and Lamarck. Genome Biology and Evolution 7 (6): 1758–1760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinch, Trevor J. 1980. Theoreticians and the Production of Experimental Anomaly: The Case of Solar Neutrinos. In The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, ed. Karin D. Knorr, Roger G. Krohn, and Richard Whitley. Dordrecht; Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  38. Suppes, Patrick. 1960. A Comparison of the Meaning and Uses of Models in Mathematics and the Empirical Sciences. Synthese 12 (2/3): 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 1962. Models of Data. In Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Weisberg, Michael. 2013. Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World, Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations