“We need another alternative to the piety of thought and cybernetics, a third thing, a scientia media, a cognition which is neither held captive by the cave of mathematical science nor released into the upper world of thought. We need philosophical reflection, a reason which, while it does not match the simplicity of thought, still does not degenerate into technological calculation. We need ethics, philosophical anthropology, philosophical psychology, and all the other regional ontologies, and we need them now in the age of the Gestell, even as we also need thought.”
–John D. Caputo, The Mystical Element in Heidegger’s Thought
Caputo talks about the possibility of a “scientia media” in this passage which is neither too meditative nor purely mathematical [1]. This provides the opening for interdisciplinary research. This topic is especially compelling to me since we are all doing interdisciplinary research here in SIAT. We all come from a very different background with a wide range of different expertise. Often it is difficult for us to find a common ground when we collaborate on a research. The reason is not too complex if we think about it. An anthropologist might point out an important aspect which might contemporarily seem speculative to a computer scientist.
Kuhn’s concept of incommensurability originally involved semantical, observational and methodological difference between global theories or paradigms. He later developed incommensurability as localized translation failure between subsets of terms employed by theory [2]. However, Kuhn’s concept does not provide much detail on ‘common measure’ between competing theories of science [3]. An example could be relative theory and quantum mechanics. Both seem to be true yet they contradict each other.
MacCleave talks about cultural negotiation as a possible solution which helps to make differences more accessible and understandable rather than creating rigid ideological grounds [4]. Instead of viewing incommensurability as an obstacle, the issues should be understood better which could provide a common ground for researchers across disciplines. MacCleave refers to different research traditions as different cultural communities and the researchers are cultural negotiators. Using conceptual and mediational tools such as the generation of concrete and contextual examples rooted in the practice of different research traditions might be helpful for exploring theoretical and philosophical ideas [4]. MacCleave’s paper talks about an interesting story about the dilemma when researchers across different disciplines get together and how the conceptual and mediation tools helped overcome the situation.
References
- http://www.janushead.org/gwu-2001/robbins.cfm
- Sankey, Howard. “Kuhn’s changing concept of incommensurability.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science44, no. 4 (1993): 759-774.
- https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-implications-of-Thomas-Kuhns-concept-of-incommensurability-for-interdisciplinary-science
- MacCleave, Anne. “Incommensurability in cross-disciplinary research: A call for cultural negotiation.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods5, no. 2 (2006): 40-54.
Leave me a Comment