Re: [Fis] Interdisciplinary consilience?

With respect to the below, it motivates me to briefly review my own efforts
at 'consilience' -- the specification hierarchy of integrative levels,
using the traditional natural sciences. It is:
{logic {physics {chemistry {biology {sociology {psychology}}}}}} (using
these labels in this case not as discourses, but as realms of being). This
general approach begins at least with Comte (who dealt instead with
discourses), perhaps earlier. Eavh pair of brackets represents an
emergence, in the sense that, reading from the Big Bang, physical phenomena
appeared first, then chemical, etc. Each integrative level is a refinement
of the one that applies more generally in the world, found to its left.
That is, biology is a KIND OF chemistry, etc., in the sense that biological
phenomena are found in more restricted regions than are chemical ones, AND
that biology depends upon chemical principles in order to come into
existence. Or, chemistry is a material cause of biology. That is the view
from the lowest integrative level {lower level -> gives rise to {upper
level}}. Going the other way we find that this is not a reductionist
construct. Here we see that biology regulates chemistry, harnesses it to
its own interests. So, {chemistry <- regulated by {biology}}. Biology is
here a formal cause of certain chemical phenomena. Chemistry is more
basic, biology more 'superior'. The system is flexible enough so that new
levels may be introduced if required -- thus, {chemistry {biochemistry
{biology}}}, taking care of some interdisciplinarity.

So, whatever applies to physical phenomena applies as well all the way up
the line. The arrows, ->, are transitive here. As well, the other arrow,
<-, IF read as exerting influence, is also transitive, BUT, as in set
theory, from which this organization as classes and subclasses is taken,
the properties of higher levels are NOT transitive downward. Formally a
specification hierarchy branches as well. This allows for fields like
hydrodynamics, which might be taken to study the 'organisms' of physics --
macroscopic vortices.

The innermost levels here are problematic in that one could make a case for
psychology to precede sociology, but also the reverse. A society is
manifestly present more generally in the world than is an individual
psychology, which, also, is regulated by the society in its development.
Note that the property of individuality increases up to the right in the
hierarchy, and psychologies are alo more individuted than sociologies.
Yet, within an indvidual its psychology regulates how social principles
will be interpreted.

>Dear FIS colleagues,
>
>Briefly expanding on interdiscipl. (trans-multi-pluri...) & cons., I would
>like to point out some differences with the Wilsonian approach. Recognizing
>its overall value as an articulated global vision of the sciences, it does
>not address but in a very classical way the relationship between
>disciplines --mostly he adopts 'reduction'. Perhaps when economist & social
>scientist Wallerstein was recently questioning, What is a "discipline"?, he
>was making an initial reflection that has to prelude the debates on
>interdisciplinarity. But when the historical origins of science and of its
>inner division of work, and its apparent 'unity', are at stake... one
>cannot go very far, as already Plato and Aristotle had responded quite
>opposite things. The tension between unity and differentiation has always
>accompanied science, seemingly.
>
>The fact is that practising scientists in most 'domains' (I prefer this
>neutral term to the current metaphor of "fields", territories, etc., or to
>its alternative of tradition, culture, etc.) have to live and navigate
>within the interdisciplinary mixing. An illustrative example may be
>"Tribology" (the study of adhesion, friction, lubrication, and wear of
>surfaces in relative motion). Its economic and technological importance is
>quite remarkable; as is the inner complexity of these studies..."arising in
>the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, biology, and engineering" (from
>Urbahk et al., 2004), involving e.g., from car engines or mechanical parts,
>to lubricant industries, skeletal joints, continental tectonics.... in
>these studies "recent experiments coupled to theoretical modelling have
>made great advances in unifying apparently diverse phenomena..."
>
>The point (in my opinion, quite explicit in several contents of the above
>paper ---and Xerman would particularly enjoy the authors reference to the
>centrality in Tribology of the "making and breaking of bonds") is that the
>mixing of two disciplinary domains is a highly dynamic event. It takes
>place sucessfully only after a series of highly interactive questions and
>responses on both sides (or more sides), going in both directions within
>one of those checkpoints I was mentioning last week. Thus this interection
>may creates a relevant new piece of knowledge. And in the extent to which a
>further unifying exchange occurs in several themes or loci in a plurality
>of checkpoints between those domains, a new scientific itinerary of
>explanation will be possible: an interdisciplinary domain will be born.
>Tribology, for instance.
>
>In what extent do the interactive events in these interdiciplinary nascent
>'checkpoints' appear as a matter of strict (Whewelian) consilience?
>Assuming that it is a well posed question (big assumption!) we could
>advance towards explaining interdisiplinarity ---one of the most intriguing
>aspects of our system of knowledge.
>
>best regards
>
>Pedro
>
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Oct 1 22:36:18 2004