An earlier version was blocked due to the large set of earlier messages. Usually I delete them if they are not relevant. I have done that this time.
Cheers, John Dear fis list, List, Popper is famous for his Three Worlds model, in which ideas sit out there in their own world (the others are material and mental, roughly). The problems approach, I think, is directed at this world. However I think that systems theorists should agree at least that there are general problems that involve many different disciplines (Rosen calls them sometime metaphors, but he means mathematical or structural Formalisms that have wide generality). By solving some of these general problems we can facilitate the generation of solutions to more specific problems, both theoretical and practical. That is what systems theory is about. Popper considered himself a realist, but thought that the object of theory (problem solutions) was verisimilitude. Exactly what that means is still a matter of debate. I agree with Joseph about the usefulness of the bibliometric work. I found it interesting, working in ecology right now, that despite many ecologists accepting that there is a socio-ecological system that requires study to solve ecological problems, that there were few if any references crossing ecology and management and political science. That reflects my reading in the fields. John From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: May 17, 2015 11:14 AM To: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ; firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro) Dear All, I agree with Rafael that there is an anti-realist flavor to Popper's concept of problems. However, it indicates to me an intiution that there is something important going on between disciplines. This is a dynamic aspect which I feel is not captured by diagrams such as Loet's :-) in which the connections between disciplines are represented by sets of lines. I would not be so hard as Dino on bibliometrics as such, but I think that once classifications and maps have been established, it is important to talk about where to go next. Best wishes, Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> To: email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 1:17 PM Subject: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro) ________________________________ De: Rafael Capurro [raf...@capurro.de] Enviado el: sábado, 16 de mayo de 2015 9:34 Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Asunto: Re: [Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? Karl Popper once suggested (Conjectures and Refutations, p. 67) that we should not think in terms or "subject matter(s)" or "disciplines" but in terms of "problems". Problems do not arise within a fixed definition of a discipline ("essentialism") but within a tradition where a theory is being discussed. In this sense, theories are in some sense "disciplines" or can be conceived as "loose clusters" of theories. But Popper speaks about a "world of problems in themselves" which is a kind of Platonism not only because it separates such "problems in themselves" from their connection to the world _as_ perceived (ie. interpreted) by humans, but also because it creates a knowledge hierarchy by giving theoretical knowledge a higher status than practical knowledge. Thirty years ago (sic) I wrote some thoughts on this issue. See: http://www.capurro.de/trita.htm Rafael
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis