The European Physical Journal Special Topics

, Volume 225, Issue 17–18, pp 3127–3135 | Cite as

Can an interdisciplinary field contribute to one of the parent disciplines from which it emerged?

Regular Article
  • 59 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Discussion and Debate: Can Economics be a Physical Science?

Abstract

In the light of contemporary discussions of inter and trans disciplinarity, this paper approaches econophysics and sociophysics to seek a response to the question – whether these interdisciplinary fields could contribute to physics and economics. Drawing upon the literature on history and philosophy of science, the paper argues that the two way traffic between physics and economics has a long history and this is likely to continue in the future.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    I. Wallerstein et al. (eds.), Open the Social Sciences: report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences (Stanford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Thompson Klein, A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science, in Practicing Interdisciplinarity, edited by P. Weingart and N. Stehr (University of Toronto Press, 1999), pp. 3–24Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Weingart, in Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse, edited by P. Weingart and N. Stehr, op. cit. pp. 25–47Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Thompson Klein, op. cit. pp. 3–5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W. Bechtel, quoted in J. Thompson Klein, op. cit. pp. 46–47 (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Bechtel, quoted in J. Thompson Klein, op. cit. p. 7 (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Nowotny, The Potential of Transdisciplinarity, www.helga-nowotny.eu/downloads/helga_nowotny_b59.pdf
  8. 8.
    H. Nowotny, op. citGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Strathern, Interdisciplinarity: Some models from the human sciences, Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 32, 123 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    B. Shneiderman, The New ABCs of Research: Achieving Breakthrough Collaboration (Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Elkana, Unmasking Certainties and Embracing Contradictions: Graduate Education in the Sciences, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2004, www.eua.be/.../MAASTRICHT_Plenary1_Yehuda_Elkana.1099472273
  12. 12.
    M. Strathern, op.cit. (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Thompson Klein, op. cit., p. 8 (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Gabora, D. Aerts, Evolution as Context-driven Actualisation of Potential toward an interdisciplinary theory of change of stat, Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 30, 69 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Ridley, The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge (Fourth Estate: London, 2015), p. 1Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Ridley, The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge (Fourth Estate: London, 2015), p. 5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Gabora, D. Aerts, op. cit. p. 69 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Mirowski, More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Natures Economics (Cambridge University Press, 1989)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Mirowski, op. cit., p. 3 (1989)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Chakraborti, I. Muni Toke, M. Patriarca, F. Abergel, Econophysics review: II. Agent-based models, Quant. Finance 11, 1013 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Chatterjee, B.K. Chakrabarti, Kinetic exchange models for income and wealth distributions, Eur. Phys. J. B 60, 135 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. Lallouache, A.S. Chakrabarti, A. Chakraborti, B.K. Chakrabarti, Opinion formation in kinetic exchange models: Spontaneous symmetry-breaking transition, Phys. Rev. E 82, 056112 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Patriarca, E. Heinsalu, A. Chakraborti, Basic kinetic wealth exchange models: Common features and open problems, Eur. J. Phys. B 73, 145 (2010)ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Chakraborti, M. Patriarca, Variational principle for the Pareto power law, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 228701 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    K. Sharma, A. Chakraborti, Physicists approach to studying socio-economic inequalities, in Physics in New Dimensions, edited by S.K. Dhiman, P. Sharma, P. Sharma (forthcoming, 2016)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    A.S. Chakrabarti, B.K. Chakrabarti, Microeconomics of the ideal gas like market models, Physica A 388, 4151 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Ball, The physical modelling of society: A historical perspective, Physica A 314, 1 (2002)ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    L. Boltzmann, Weitere Studien uber das Warmegleichegewicht unter Gasmolekulen, Akad. Wiss. Wein 66, 275 (1872)MATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    E. Majorana, Il valore delle leggi statistiche nella fisica e nelle scienze sociali, Scientia, Quarta serie, 36, 58 (1942) [English translation in E. Majorana, The value of statistical laws in physics and social sciences, Quant. Finance 5, 133 (2005)]Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    V. Pareto, Cours d’Économie Politique (Université de Lausanne, 1897)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. Smith, D.K. Foley, Classical thermodynamics and economic general equilibrium theory, J. Econ. Dyn. Cont. 32, 7 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    P. Mirowski, op. cit. p. 5 (1989)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    P. Mirowski, op. cit. p. 7–8 (1989)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, first published 1953, (Blackwell Publishing, 2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences and Springer 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computational and Integrative Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew Delhi-110067India
  2. 2.Zakir Husain Centre for Educational Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew Delhi-110067India

Personalised recommendations