Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads
Transdisciplinarity at the crossroads
复制标题
跨学科处于十字路口
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
6
通讯作者：
Gerald Steiner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. Scholz;Gerald Steiner
20世纪世纪科学通过建立新的学科和专门的或跨学科的子学科，看到了科学分化的日益迅速的发展;这被称为学科的分形和混沌（Abbott 2001）。科学体系的这种日益碎片化，具有不同类型的定性和定量方法，形式和验证规范，如演绎和归纳推理，概率和确定性模型，甚至不同形式的推理（例如，在数学中，某些学校不认为间接证明是有效或可接受的; Gonzalez 1991）呼吁从内部科学的角度整合元层次（Godel 1931）。构建适当的反思、验证和整合的元层次可能在科学的未来发展中发挥重要作用。长期以来，科学界一直信奉洪堡主义或牛顿主义的世界观，这种世界观受到物理学原理的强烈影响，缺乏一个综合、连贯的知识体系来研究人类与环境的相互作用。对自然统一性的理解被认为是最终的参考（von Weizsacker 1980/1971; Wilson 1999）。一致性和推理的一致性（Bunge，1967 a，B）以及对理性的强烈信念（Carnap，1991; Oppenheim和Putnam，1958）占主导地位。此外，对知识整合的尝试，如对一般系统理论的探索（von Bertalanffy 1951），在很长一段时间内都受到自然科学思想的影响。寻找一个统一的层次或实体，或元层次的框架（Godel 1931）或完全的跨学科性，可以被认为是模式1跨学科性（Piaget 1972），这有时会导致灵性的假设和超越的想法（Nicolescu 2014）。然而，整合和一致性以及处理系统复杂性和整合推理的挑战也可以从现实主义的立场来处理（Bunge 2003; Klein 2003; Mitchell 2003; Scholz 2011）。今天，科学挑战变得更加复杂。在人类世的时代（Crutzen 2002），而不是“自然的统一”，我们正在寻找“不可分割的耦合人类环境系统的弹性”（Scholz 2011）及其本体论，动力学和治理作为可持续发展科学的基础（Kates 2012）。这正是模式2类型的跨学科性（Scholz and Steiner 2015a; Gibbons et al. 1994）和从社会科学到社会科学的转变（Scholz and Stauffacher 2009; Seidl et al. 2013）用来克服科学还原论观点的地方。跨学科需要理论和实践。关于跨学科是如何被构想的，已经有很多文章。然而，正如我们在准备这个专题的过程中发现的那样，同行评审期刊上很少有科学论文记录跨学科过程的社会和科学成果和好处。当&罗兰W. Scholz roland. scholz@www.example.com
Twentieth century science has seen an increasingly rapid development of the differentiation of science at large by building new disciplines and specialized or interdisciplinary sub-disciplines; this has been labeled fractalization and chaos of disciplines (Abbott 2001). This increasing fragmentation of the body of sciences, with different types of qualitative and quantitative methods, forms, and norms of validation such as deductive and inductive reasoning, probabilistic and deterministic models, or even different forms of reasoning (for instance, in mathematics certain schools do not consider an indirect proof as valid or acceptable; Gonzalez 1991) call for integrating meta-levels from an inner-science perspective (Godel 1931). The construction of proper meta-levels of reflection, validation, and integration may play an important role in the future development of sciences. Science has long subscribed to a Humboldtian or Newtonian world view that has been strongly shaped by a physical rationale and was lacking an integrating, coherent system of knowledge for the investigation of human– environment interactions. Understanding of the unity of nature was perceived as the ultimate reference (von Weizsacker 1980/1971; Wilson 1999). Consilience and consistency of reasoning (Bunge 1967a, b) and a strong belief in rationality (Carnap 1991; Oppenheim and Putnam 1958) were dominant. In addition, attempts at the integration of knowledge, such as the search for a general system theory (von Bertalanffy 1951), were shaped by the thinking of natural science for a long time. The search for a unifying level or entity, or a framing of the meta-level (Godel 1931) or total transdisciplinarity, can be considered Mode 1 transdisciplinarity (Piaget 1972), which sometimes leads to the assumption of spirituality and the idea of transcendence (Nicolescu 2014). However, the challenge of integration and consistency and dealing with a complexity of systems and integrated reasoning can also be approached from a realist stance (Bunge 2003; Klein 2003; Mitchell 2003; Scholz 2011). Today, the scientific challenge has become even more complex. In the age of the Anthropocene (Crutzen 2002), instead of a ‘‘unity of nature’’ we are looking at the ‘‘resilience of inextricably coupled human–environment systems’’ (Scholz 2011) and their ontology, dynamics, and governance as a basis of sustainability science (Kates 2012). This is precisely where transdisciplinarity of the Mode 2 type (Scholz and Steiner 2015a; Gibbons et al. 1994) and the turn From a science for society to a science with society (Scholz and Stauffacher 2009; Seidl et al. 2013) serve to overcome the reductionist view of science. Transdisciplinarity requires theory and practice. Much has been written about how transdisciplinarity is conceived. However, as we discovered over the course of preparing this special feature, very few scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals document the social and scientific outcomes and benefits of transdisciplinary processes. When & Roland W. Scholz roland.scholz@igb-extern.fraunhofer.de