Dear Moises, Guy, Stan---and colleagues,

I would not agree with the "silo" interpretation of scientific domains, at least that's not the way Rosenbloom and many others (myself included) understand them. See the reference mentioned below by Moises and my own (Scientomics: An emergent perspective in knowledge organization. Pedro C. Marijuán, Raquel del Moral and Jorge Navarro. /Knowledge organization/ 2012, 39 (3), 153-164.) About the subsumption hierarchy that Stan introduces, in what extent is it a relevant trait? Compositionally, the main objects of those big sciences conform to it, but the disciplines themselves? I doubt. Besides, along that view a new form of reductionism creeps in: "everything from bit". Hierarchy between domains? Just a look at the background map of the sciences in the figure below, empirically obtained from citations, shows an amazing dispersion and inter-penetration of disciplines between the four Great Domains. There appear hundreds of disciplines in the figure but the overall tallying may escalate to several thousands (between 5,000 and 10,000 depending on the criteria).

An interesting question: Why do we create such an astonishing number of disciplines? Methodologically it is unclear that the creation, growth and stagnation of disciplines respond to single logic criteria. Rather, we have suggested a massive "social" communication between disciplines that conduces to "recombination phenomena" of knowledge bodies among them. For instance, influential bodies such as Euclidian geometry, Newtonian mechanics, differential equations, genetics, and so on (and a multitude of other minor modules), would have generated the history of sciences, not only “developmentally” inside their own fields, but even more “combinatorially”, propelling the multidisciplinary evolution and cross-fertilization among scientific disciplines.

In the main track of the current discussion (It was nice hearing from Koichiro!) we are establishing the boundaries or interfaces between the nuclear information science and thermodynamics, but the relationship with physics is far more complex, as we must establish the interfaces with quantum information, physics of self-organization and emergence, and with cosmological information too. It is impossible to mix together all these discussions (as Terry remarked a few days ago concerning the relationships with quantum information). In the extent to which some of these particular discussions become particularly fertile, new fields will emerge within the overlap of physics and information domains.

Some comments in Rosenbloom's book on the relationship between information and computing are quite interesting for this discussion and for interlocking with the main discussion track... but this message is becoming too long.

All the best--Pedro

Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote:
Hi Guy.
It seams that you sent your message only to me :-)
I am forwarding now to FIS
By the way, "Domain Analisys" as in Knowledge Organization (Hjørland, Birger. "Domain analysis in information science: eleven approaches–traditional as well as innovative." Journal of documentation 58.4 (2002): 422-462.) is also a good approach.

2015-01-21 18:24 GMT-02:00 Guy A Hoelzer < <>>:

    Hi All,

    “Domain” implies a kind of silo to me.  Information science is
    emerging with intensive interaction among people in a relatively
    small community of colleagues, which is indeed silo-like even
    though we generally see it as a deep layer of scientific inquiry
    that can unite traditional domains.  In other words, at least some
    of us would like to see information science ultimately achieve
    recognition as an higher order scientific enterprise within which
    (all?) scientific domains are embedded.  This hierarchical view is
    nicely captured with Stan’s subsumptive hierarchy scheme:

    {information science {physics {chemistry {biology {social

    Of course, this view also suggests that the scientific disciplines
    within information science are not, or should not be, domains,
    either.  As an evolutionary biologist myself, that is exactly the
    way I think about it.  I would not say that biology exists outside
    of chemistry or physics, and I see the social sciences as
    specialized sub-disciplines of biology.  The ‘domains of science’
    illustration reveals a degree of isolation between the traditional
    disciplines, but I think those boundaries are breaking down over
    time and information science could help to speed up the
    integration among disciplines.  I, for one, think that would
    represent scientific progress.



    Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
    Department of Biology
    University of Nevada Reno

    Phone:  775-784-4860 <tel:775-784-4860>
    Fax:  775-784-1302 <tel:775-784-1302> <>

    On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Moisés André Nisenbaum
    <>> wrote:

    Pedro, this image is strongly related to my research.
    My graduation and master degree was in Physics. But now I am in
    IS world through PhD program of IBICT/UFRJ in Brazil.
    As you, Jorge and Raquel said (Navarro, Moral, Marijuan, 2013),
    IS is about to become one of four great scientific domains. Don't
    you think that one of the greatest reasons of it is the (big)
    interdisciplinar nature of IS? (Saracevic, 1995).
    Interdisciplinarity is in IS's "DNA" :-)
    I am investigating some aspects of interdisciplinarity between IS
    and Natural Sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) (inspired
    by Capurros's work
    Some questions of this research are: 1) why (or how) a natural
    scientist enters in IS world? What are their motivations?; 2) how
    strong this interdisciplinarity is? (inspired by Loet's works on
    the theme - for example, Leydesdorff, Rafols (2011)); 4) How the
    physical concepts of information are present in IS articles.
    I believe that inside FIS I will find many answers to my
    questions. By observation of Scientific Communication and
    Bibliometrics and of course, if I have the opportunity, by
    interviewing the members of FIS :-)
    I can say that in only few weeks of FIS I already have learned a
    lot :-)

    Navarro, J.; Moral, R; Marijuan, P; Uprising of the
    Informational: Towards a New Way of Thinking In Information
    Science. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
    Philosophy of Information, Xi'an (2013)
    Saracevic, Tefko. "Interdisciplinary nature of information
    science." Ciência da informação 24.1 (1995): 36-41.
    Leydesdorff, Loet, and Ismael Rafols. "Indicators of the
    interdisciplinarity of journals: Diversity, centrality, and
    citations." Journal of Informetrics 5.1 (2011): 87-100.

    2015-01-19 10:19 GMT-02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan
    < <>>:

        Thanks Moises, here it is --in case the list server
        suppresses the image again, the dropbox link below contains
        the image too (at the end of the philoinfo paper, belonging
        to the Proceedings of the Xian Conference, 2013). best ---Pedro


        *Figure 1. The Four Great Domains of Science*. The graphic
        shows the network of contemporary disciplines in the
        background (following Bollen /et al/., 2009); while the
        superimposed “four-leaf clover” represents the four great
        scientific domains: physical, biological, social, and

        Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote:
        Hi, Pedro.
        I didnt receive th image (Figure 1. The Four Great Domains
        of Science)
        Would you please send it again?

        Thank you.


-- -------------------------------------------------
        Pedro C. Marijuán
        Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
        Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
        Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
        Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
        50009 Zaragoza, Spain
        Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <tel:%2B34%20976%2071%203526> (& 6818) <>

-- Moisés André Nisenbaum
    Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
    Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
    Campus Maracanã <>
    Fis mailing list <>

Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Maracanã <>

Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to