I agree with Pedro.
That is the way I understand that the concept of "Domain" must be discussed
in Information Science.
About the "explosion" in number of disciplines, this is analized and called
"Knowledge Pathology (Patologia do Saber)" by Hilton Japiassu (a great
brazilian philosopher) and in his book (below) is the explanation on how
this phenomenon can leads to Interdisciplinarity.

Japiassu, Hilton. Interdisciplinaridade e patologia do saber. Imago
Editora, 1976.



2015-01-22 13:58 GMT-02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:

>  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.
>  Best
>  Moises
>
>
> 2015-01-21 18:24 GMT-02:00 Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu>:
>
>> 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 sciences}}}}}
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>  Guy
>>
>> Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
>> Department of Biology
>> University of Nevada Reno
>>
>> Phone:  775-784-4860
>> Fax:  775-784-1302
>> hoel...@unr.edu
>>
>>  On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:56 AM, Moisés André Nisenbaum <
>> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br> 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 http://www.capurro.de/infoconcept.html).
>> 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 :-)
>> Best,
>> Moises.
>>
>>
>>  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 <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wslnk41c3lquc55/AADpm_U6xuhm6jHK0esyN-29a?dl=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  *<clip_image002.jpg>*
>>>
>>> *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
>>> informational.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>  Moises
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> 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)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>   Moisés André Nisenbaum
>> Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
>> Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
>> Campus Maracanã
>> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
>>      _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>  --
>   Moisés André Nisenbaum
> Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
> Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
> Campus Maracanã
> moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>


-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Maracanã
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to