Advertisement

On Becoming Reflective About Our Viewing and Doing Science

  • Ton Jörg
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we will deal with the first step of the new agenda for the social sciences, with the purpose to give birth to a new science. It is the step of becoming reflective about our viewing and doing science: the science that Kuhn (1970) described as ‘normal science’, as a state of art in the field of the sciences operating in a society. Reading of his main work about scientific revolutions gives the impression that the need to become reflective has been disregarded by Kuhn as a first step for a fundamental change in viewing and doing science.

Keywords

Blind Spot Scientific Revolution Normal Science Dynamic Complex Network Critical Stance 
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. Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Backström, Th, & Döös, M. (2008). Relatonics as a key concept for networked organizations. In G. Putnik & M. Cunha (Eds.), Encyclopedia of networked and virtual organizations. Hersey: Idea Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  4. Biesta, G. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Bohm, D. (1985). Unfolding meaning. Mickleton: Foundation House.Google Scholar
  6. Bruner, J. (1987). Foreword. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewoods Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, B. (2004). Inventions of teaching: A genealogy. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  10. Dent, E. B., & Umpleby, S. A. (1998). Underlying assumptions of several traditions in systems science. In R. Trappl (Ed.), Cybernetics and systems '98 (pp. 513–518). Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.Google Scholar
  11. Fleener, J. (2002). Curriculum dynamics. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Glick, J. (1997). Foreword. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gohr, S. (2000). Magritte. San Francisco: Abrams Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Hofstadter, D. (2007). I am a strange loop. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  15. Jardine, D. W., Friesen, S., & Clifford, P. (2006). Curriculum in abundance. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  16. Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order. Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Keynes, J. M. (1936). General theory of employment, interest, and money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The road since structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Luhmann, N. (2002). Theories of distinction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Morin, E. (2001). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Oyama, S. (2000). Evolution’s eye. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pinar, W. F. (2006). Foreword: The lure that pulls flowerheads to face the sun. In D. Jardine, S. Friesen, & P. Clifford (Eds.), Curriculum in abundance (pp. ix–xxii). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. Glasgow: Fontana Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  25. Reid, R. (2007). Biological emergences: Evolution by natural experiment. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rescher, N. (1998). Complexity: A philosophical overview. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Rip, A. (2002). Science for the 21st Century. In P. Tindemans, A. Verrijn-Stuart, & R. Visser (Eds.), The future of the sciences and humanities (pp. 99–148). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rose, S. (1997). Lifelines: Biology beyond determinism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Ruurlo Manifest (2006). Crossing boundaries to New Horizons (Declaration of the Founders Meeting of the ‘Institute Para Limes’). Retrieved at http://wmstest.com/about_ipl_history.htm
  30. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Solé, R., & Goodwin, B. (2000). Signs of life: How complexity pervades biology. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  32. Stanley, D. (2006). Comparative dynamics: Healthy collectivities and the pattern which connects. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 3(1), 73–82.Google Scholar
  33. Tindemans, P., Verrijn-Stuart, A., & Visser, R. (Eds.). (2002). The future of the sciences and humanities. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Valsiner, J., & Van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind: Construction of the idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Vygotsky, L. (1997b). Genesis of higher mental functions. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (The history of the development of higher mental functions, Vol. 4, pp. 97–119). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  37. Vygotsky, L. (1997c). Educational psychology. Boca Raton: St Lucie Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wallerstein, I., et al. (1996). Opening the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Watzlawick, P. (Ed.). (1984). The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? Contributions to constructivism. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  40. Webster, G., & Goodwin, B. (1996). Form and transformation: Generative and relational principles in biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Whitehead, A. N. (1925/1967). Science and the modern world. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wilden, A. (1987). The rules are no game. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Education and Learning (former IVLOS)University of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations