Re: [Fis] CONSILIENCE & interdisciplinarity

Dear Malcolm, Stan, Richard, and colleagues,

The distinction of Wilsonian versus Whewellian modes of interdisciplinary /
intradisciplinary consilience looks fine (nevertheless, I will try to
produce in next weeks some further analysis on the pros and cons of the
Wilsonian stuff--although Richard may disagree, reductionism appears as one
of its central motifs). In general, the cognizing relationships between
disciplines tend to be strained, and cases of false consilience are more
the norm than the exception: for instance, so many misunderstandings can be
collected around information, entropy, evolution, natural selection,
fitness, value, meaning... just looking into our discussions.

For a series of reasons --including historical ones--- we lack interesting
visions on what disciplines are and how they connect. The hierarchical
approach has left quite durable an impression and has become the standard
surrogate. In that regard, Stan's comments on integrative levels (Jerry
produced some arguments along that direction too, during the sustainable
development discussion) at least contain some checks and balances regarding
reductionism's unidirectionality of causal flows; but in my opinion it is
not enough. Lacking a sophisticate new vision to propose (as I also have
relied on 'levels' and disciplinary overlappings--though emphasizing the
occurrence of massive interdisciplinary mixing, and not only in 'borders'
between vicinal disciplines) I suggest that we endorse as a main
interdisciplinary motif 'circularity' rather than 'hierarchy'. It is quite
easy, for instance, in Stan's integrative levels {logic {physics
{chemistry {biology {sociology {psychology}}}}}} to argue that 'logic' is
not an absolute, self-sufficient realm but a social emergence out from
human beings within a socio--psycho --bio-- etc context. So by uniting
both extremes we would get into Piaget's circle of the sciences ---an
epistemic vision that has passed almost unheard.... Anyhow, that linear
hierarchy of the sciences in parallel with the integrative levels has been
shared by reductionists and non-reductionists alike, e.g., recent figures
such as von Bertalanffy and Popper --in my opinion, and quite respectfully,
an error for the former.

Historically, the circle versus the hierarchy approach to the sciences is
quite old in Western thought. There are respected "patrons" for both
visions. To my knowledge, the hierarchy of integrative levels was explicit
in Plotinus of Alexandria (around III AD), while Martianus Capella (around
IV AD) championed the disciplinary structures later on known as "Trivium"
and "Quadrivium" (usually represented forming a circle of knowledge... with
philosophy and religion at its center). It is intriguing why the latter got
his schema accepted as common wisdom, for quite many centuries. To be
reversed towards linear schemes after the scientific revolution.

What I have written is too schematic --grains of salt needed. In any case I
strongly endorse Malcolm's comment on the need to include philosophy in the
contemplation of the interdisciplinary problem, both historically and in
our times. And apart from the discussions to come on Whewellian
consilience, perhaps the 'social networking' behind knowledge is a very
intriguing direction to explore too ---putting varieties of human knowledge
in a similar 'informational' footing with respect to the
biological-molecular one...

best regards

Pedro

(A side comment: entering computers into the above scheme of levels, it
would be funny to hear reductionists' claims on how the software should be
declared 'causally impotent' regarding the 'hard'...)
       

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Oct 6 13:20:28 2004