...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science >What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration
【24h】

What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration

机译：什么是跨学科交流？关于学科整合思想的思考

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In this paper I attempt to answer the question: What is interdisciplinary communication? I attempt to answer this question, rather than what some might consider the ontologically prior question-what is interdisciplinarity (ID)?-for two reasons: (1) there is no generally agreed-upon definition of ID; and (2) one's views regarding interdisciplinary communication have a normative relationship with one's other views of ID, including one's views of its very essence. I support these claims with reference to the growing literature on ID, which has a marked tendency to favor the idea that interdisciplinary communication entails some kind of 'integration'. The literature on ID does not yet include very many philosophers, but we have something valuable to offer in addressing the question of interdisciplinary communication. Playing somewhat fast-and-loose with traditional categories of the subdisciplines of philosophy, I group some philosophers-mostly from the philosophy of science, social-political philosophy, and moral theory-and some non-philosophers together to provide three different, but related, answers to the question of interdisciplinary communication. The groups are as follows: (1) Habermas-Klein, (2) Kuhn-MacIntyre, and (3) Bataille-Lyotard. These groups can also be thought of in terms of the types of answers they give to the question of interdisciplinary communication, especially in terms of the following key words (where the numbers correspond to the groups from the previous sentence): (1) consensus, (2) incommensurability, and (3) invention.
机译：在本文中，我试图回答以下问题：什么是跨学科交流？我试图回答这个问题，而不是回答某些人可能会在本体论上优先考虑的问题-什么是学科交叉（ID）？原因有两个：（1）没有普遍认同的ID定义; （2）一个人关于跨学科交流的观点与一个人的其他ID观点具有规范的关系，包括一个人的本质观点。我参考有关ID的文献不断增长来支持这些主张，该文献具有明显的倾向性倾向，即跨学科交流需要某种“整合”。关于ID的文献还没有包括很多哲学家，但是在解决跨学科交流的问题上我们可以提供一些有价值的东西。我在哲学子学科的传统类别中有些松懈，我将一些哲学家（主要来自科学哲学，社会政治哲学和道德理论）和一些非哲学家归纳在一起，以提供三种不同但相关的，回答跨学科交流问题。这些组如下：（1）哈贝马斯-克莱因，（2）库恩-麦金太尔，和（3）巴塔耶-利奥塔德。还可以根据他们对跨学科交流问题的回答类型来考虑这些群体，尤其是根据以下关键词（其中的数字与上一句中的群体相对应）而言：（1）共识， （2）不可通约性，以及（3）发明。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号