Interdisciplinarity in Philosophy of Science

  • Marie I. Kaiser
  • Maria KronfeldnerEmail author
  • Robert Meunier


This paper examines various ways in which philosophy of science can be interdisciplinary. It aims to provide a map of relations between philosophy and sciences, some of which are interdisciplinary. Such a map should also inform discussions concerning the question “How much philosophy is there in the philosophy of science?” In Sect. 1, we distinguish between synoptic and collaborative interdisciplinarity. With respect to the latter, we furthermore distinguish between two kinds of reflective forms of collaborative interdisciplinarity. We also briefly explicate how complexity triggers interdisciplinarity. In Sect. 2, we apply the distinctions of Sect. 1 to philosophy of science and analyze in which sense different styles of philosophy of science are interdisciplinary. The styles that we discuss are a synoptic-general, a reflective-general, a reflective-particular, a particular-embedded and a descriptive or normative style.


Interdisciplinarity Reflective disciplines Collaboration Philosophical styles Complexity Normativity 



In March 2013, the interdisciplinarity of philosophy of science was the subject of a workshop and a panel discussion at the first conference of the German Society for Philosophy of Science (Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsphilosophie) in Hanover, Germany (conference theme: “How much philosophy is there in the philosophy of science?”). The focus was on the situation of early-career researchers. The workshop and panel discussion was funded by the Andrea von Braun Foundation (see, last access August 6, 2013). We would like to thank the Andrea von Braun Foundation for its great support, as well as the workshop participants and the panelists, who are listed on the above-mentioned page, for the stimulating discussions. We would also like to thank the colleagues and students who organized the conference in Hanover and made it possible that the event could take place in such a fruitful atmosphere. This paper is the theoretical counterpart of a paper that addresses the practical implications for early-career researchers and research-related institutions with respect to funding and job profiles in interdisciplinary contexts in philosophy of science (Kaiser, Kronfeldner, Meunier (forthc.), “Problems and Prospects of Interdisciplinary Philosophy of Science: A Report from the Workbench,” Briefe zur Interdisziplinarität).


  1. Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms. Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New York/London: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  2. Blanchard, A. (2012). Climate change and biodiversity: A need for ‘reflexive Interdisciplinary’. In T. Potthast & S. Meisch (Eds.), Climate change and sustainable development (pp. 381–386). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boden, M. A. (1999). What is interdisciplinarity? In R. Cunningham (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity and the organization of knowledge in Europe (pp. 13–24). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  4. Brandon, R. N. (1996). Concepts and methods in evolutionary biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2004). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ghiselin, M. T. (1974). A radical solution to the species problem. Systematic Zoology, 23(4), 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graur, D., Zheng, Y., Nicholas, P., Azevedo, R. B. R., Zufall, R. A., & Elhaik, E. (2013). On the immortality of television sets: “Function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE. Genome Biology and Evolution, 5(3), 578–590.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295–300.Google Scholar
  10. Hull, D. (1976). Are species really individuals? Systematic Zoology, 25(2), 174–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huneman, P. (2010). Topological explanations and robustness in biological sciences. Synthese, 177, 213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaiser, M. I., Kronfeldner, M., & Meunier, R. (forthcoming). Problems and prospects of interdisciplinary philosophy of science: A report from the workbench. Briefe zur Interdisziplinarität. Google Scholar
  13. Klein, J. T. (2010). A taxonomy of interdisciplinarity. In R. Frodeman (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (pp. 15–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. (1997). Advancing interdisciplinary Studies. In J. Gaff & J. Ratcliff (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum: A comprehensive guide to purposes, structures, practices, and changes (pp. 393–415). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Kronfeldner, M. (2010). Won’t you please unite? Darwinism, cultural evolution and kinds of synthesis. In E. S.-D. A. Barahona & H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.) The hereditary hourglass: Genetics and epigenetics, 1868-2000, (Preprint 392, pp. 111–125). Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Google Scholar
  16. Mitchell, S. D. (2009). Unsimple truths. Science complexity and policy. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. OED Online. (2013). Interdisciplinary, adj. Oxford University Press. Accessed 09 Aug 2013.
  18. Pigliucci, M. (2003). Species as family resemblance concepts: The (dis-)solution of the species problem? BioEssays: News and Reviews in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, 25(6), 596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schaffner, K. F. (1974). The peripherality of reductionism in the development of molecular biology. Journal of the History of Biology, 7(1), 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schaffner, K. F. (1993). Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sober, E., & Lewontin, R. C. (1982). Artifact, cause and genic selection. Philosophy of Science, 49(2), 157–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Voßkamp, W. (1987). Interdisziplinarität in den Geisteswissenschaften. In J. Kocka (Ed.), Interdisziplinarität. Praxis, Herausforderung, Ideologie (pp. 92–105). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Weingart, P. (1996). Interdisciplinarity. Institutional responses to changes in the world of science. In H. Barta & E. Grabner-Niel (Eds.), Wissenschaft und Verantwortlichkeit 1996: Die Wissenschaft - eine Gefahr für die Welt? Eine Veröffentlichung des Senatsarbeitskreises “Wissenschaft und Verantwortlichkeit” an der Universität Innsbruck (pp. 131–143). Wien: WUV Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie I. Kaiser
    • 1
  • Maria Kronfeldner
    • 2
    Email author
  • Robert Meunier
    • 3
  1. 1.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität KölnCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyCEUBudapestHungary
  3. 3.History and Philosophy of the Life-SciencesICI Kulturlabor BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations