Interdisciplinarity in Philosophy of Science
- 486 Downloads
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.
KeywordsInterdisciplinarity 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 http://www.wissphil.de/index.php?site=gwp2013&subsite=panel, 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).
- Bechtel, W. (2008). Mental mechanisms. Philosophical perspectives on cognitive neuroscience. New York/London: Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
- 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
- Brandon, R. N. (1996). Concepts and methods in evolutionary biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease: Association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295–300.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- OED Online. (2013). Interdisciplinary, adj. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/97720. Accessed 09 Aug 2013.
- Schaffner, K. F. (1993). Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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