Talk:Interdisciplinarity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tddwigg 02:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)==Clark Center==

I think it would be very cool to have a pic of the Clark Center. Stanford people, can you find one that's in the public domain and post? Bryan 14:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Explanation of Page Move 2 Interdisciplinarity terms 3 Explanation of Reversion (11/27/05 4 Thoughts on interdisciplinarity/holism 5 the title of this page is fugly at best 6 Example of transdisciplinarity edited -- rationale

[edit] Explanation of Page Move

The article titled 'Interdisciplinarity' has been repeatedly moved to 'Interdisciplinary' (see Talk:Interdisciplinary on the grounds that the word is not in the dictionary. Kindly note the following:

1. Not true. Merriam-Webster: in·ter·dis·ci·plin·ar·i·ty \ noun
2. According to Naming conventions, articles titled with adjectives ('interdisciplinary') should be moved to their noun forms ('interdisciplinarity')
3. The term 'interdisciplinarity' is in widespread use in academia
4. A Google search for 'interdisciplinarity' matches nearly one-half million documents.

Please don't move this page back to 'interdisciplinary'. Bryan 16:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interdisciplinarity terms

I think these are transdisciplinarity terms - I'm planning to move them there. Bryan 12:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• abstraction
• architecture
• analogy
• chaos theory
• complexity
• control
• culture
• cycle
• design
• discipline
• elegance
• energy
• entropy
• equilibrium
• evolution
• feedback
• generalization
• hierarchy
• invariance
• language
• learning
• logic
• methodology
• model
• mind
• negotiation
• ontology
• order
• pattern
• position
• purpose
• relation
• self-organization
• signal
• simplicity
• specialization
• strategy
• structure
• synthesis
• system
• transformation
• trust
• uniformity
• unity
• universe
• whole

[edit] Explanation of Reversion (11/27/05

Please note that recent updates to this page are a collaborative effort of students studying interdisciplinarity at Truman State University.Tddwigg 02:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following, which was added to the lead section:

In life and human sciences, the reference framework of interdisciplinarity has a very simple basic structure: It becomes clear when, based on the matrix with the four central questions of (causation, ontogeny, adaptation, phylogeny), one asks and at the same time takes the reference levels (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group) at which the questions are aimed into account.

Apologies, but this just doesn't make any sense.Bryan 16:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from this article: Guiding Principles for Interdisciplinarity in Human Sciences, towards a Theory of Anthropology. Gerhard Medicus, Psychiatric Hospital of Tyrol, A-6060 Hall i.T. and Research Unit for Human Ethology in the Max Planck Society, D-82346 Andechs. Click here to read it URL accessed on 1 April 2006. --Smithfarm 11:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on interdisciplinarity/holism

Any thoughts on how to distinguish between interdisciplinarity and holism in science? Is the difference merely emotional? Does holism sound confrontational, while interdisciplinarity is neutral? --Smithfarm 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we get a little historical information on the development of interdisciplinarity as a response to the increasing fragmentation of knowledge?

[edit] the title of this page is fugly at best

is there any chance we could call it interdiscipline? KzzRzzKnocker 05:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Google for it and you'll see why. --Smithfarm 11:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

what is interdiscipline, then? /izl 08:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

nothing, I guess ;)

aka "something not described on wikipedia" jimbo: "yet". sum of all... kzz* 17:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example of transdisciplinarity edited -- rationale

The expansion of this section is really excellent, except for the following which, it seems to me (and with apologies to the author), isn't as good:

"canonical standards of a discipline may be consciously defied for heuristic purposes. An example might be the use of mass lexical comparison in the Nostratic and Proto-World language projects, rather than the phonological correspondence rules typical of work in historical linguistics."

I think the author meant "defined," not "defied," but in any case, I don't agree with the definition; what's more, the example is (to say the least) rather obscure for a general readership encyclopedia! I'll provide a citation.

I don't want to delete without giving people a chance to discuss, or to enter into a revert-war. I was the author, and I'm not offended, just really sure the change wasn't an improvement. BTW, I did indeed mean "defied" -- a common thread among all the versions of transdisciplinarity is that they're transgressive of disciplinary decorum and expectations. What's now offered as "transdisciplinarity" isn't recognized in the literature as such -- to the degree (small) that the term has a consensus meaning. And I continue to think that the linguistics examples are strong in that they illustrate how a violation of the standard rules of a discipline are held (by transdisciplinarians, anyhow) to make new objects of knowledge available. DavidOaks 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)