I believe Moises meant this email for Pedro and all of fis so I am copying you with my reply to Moises
On 2015-05-24, at 7:17 AM, Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote: > Hi, Pedro, Bob and FISers. > It is interesting that the original post lead us to a variety of very > important subjects. Thank you Pedro and Bob for resuming, replying and > sending more ideas about those subjects. > I understand that one of the greatest job of Information Science is to study > how Science was organized and how scientists communicate, historically since > the first paper was published in Philosophical Transactions at 1666. With the > advent of Information Society, this organization of Science is changing. > Because of the huge number of disciplines the inter and transdisciplinary has > becoming more and more important. In my opinion, Bob’s idea of “Scientific > Undisciplinarity” can be the start point of Interdisciplinarity. However, I > believe what Japiassu (a great Brazilian philosopher) said: that > Interdisciplinarity is impossible without disciplinarity. This is my point too when I wrote: "Now I am not saying that learning a discipline is a bad thing as it provides a solid training and an understanding of how a set of principles describes certain phenomena. It is a model of how a scientific, scholarly or artistic practice can be carried out. As long as one does not become a disciple of one's discipline or disciplines they can be very useful for creating a new discipline or going beyond ones discipline." > > Returning to the Four Great Domains, it is important to understand that it is > a “model” that we are using to understand this new way of Science > organization and scientific communication. As all models, this approach have > advantages but also limitations that we must know and deal with them. For > example, in his model, Rosenbloom proposes that disciplines in “Humanities > are part of a broad conception of Social Sciences great scientific domain” > (it is a big limitation). Good point > > To make my Idea clear, here are my core questions: > 1) The scientific disciplines can be represented by a combination of four > Great Scientific Domains? Science that is value free can be represented by a combination of four Great Scientific Domains but we need science with values - what good is knowledge if it is not put to good use to benefit humankind. The four great science domains are not enough - they give us knowledge but we also need wisdom and hence humanistic studies > 2) The Informational is the fourth Great Scientific Domain? Informational or > computing does not matter they are similar - you cannot do information > without computing and similarly you can not do computing without information > - and why choose why not Five Great Scientific Domains and a few humanistic > ones as well. > 3) Is choose of the great domains arbitrary? YES > > The third question can be thought as an analogy (to be verified). The idea is > that disciplines in domains can be analogous to "events" in space time and > then can have a graphic representation (not scientometric) and have some > symmetries (coordinate transformation, for example). > > My goal is to try to verify these questions empirically and I believe that > analysis of maps of science, as developed by Loet, can be a good approach. Yes a good approach but you need to do more the classify - we need to synthesize science with value and with human-centric concerns > > In Brazil, we send “hugs” (“abraços” in Portuguese) at the end of messages. > So, > > Abraços > Moisés. Re-abracos and trans-abracos a todos/tutti/all - Bob > > Reference: > JAPIASSU, Hilton. Interdisciplinaridade e patologia do saber. Rio de Janeiro, > Imago, 1976. > > -- > 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
