Interdisciplinary research: the philosophy of understanding problem

Interdisciplinary research: the philosophy of understanding problem 


Dr.filos.  prof. Ilham Mammadzade    


      Interdisciplinary studies in recent years have become relevant in science. The phrase that "discoveries occur at the interface of science" sounds familiar. (1,2,3) can even say that they are in the trend, acquired the status of a mandatory approach. But this does not mean that they have become the subject of serious philosophical studies. Naturally, their relevance is conceptualized in more basic sciences. We note in this regard that the interdisciplinary scientific study of the interactions of their different philosophical reflection, which is devoted to this article.        

In our view, philosophers increasingly have to use information from different fields that can not be analyzed in the framework of the former division of the social sciences. (10) In addition, there is a need for understanding and relations between philosophy, sociology, biology, and probably all of the basic sciences. Philosophy understanding of interdisciplinary problems, so their quality and depth, on the one hand, the need of certain concepts, meanings, images, logic, communications. On the other hand, in need science itself.        

Philosophy may be the language of interdisciplinary research. But for that she needs a new way to understand themselves, their past, in order to anticipate the trends of the present and the future. It is clear that philosophical understanding of the specifics, the characteristics of interdisciplinary research would be productive to start by pointing to the history of the development of this problem in the philosophy, and then consider some of the contours, the research priorities of its present state.                          

From Discipline to interdisciplinary interaction        

 It has now become clear that interdisciplinary research is needed, but should understand the importance of the consideration of the philosophy of interdisciplinary research, to see and to justify, and be sure that their value does not deny, and involves the development of individual disciplines. On one hand, non-classical approaches involving interdisciplinary research, and, on the other hand, the classical science, with its disciplinary division are connected with each other. It should, however, deal with the fact they should be in basic and social sciences, as they should be in different stages of a particular study. It must be borne in mind that each specific biophysicist or biochemist could practice their interdisciplinary scope and object, but not to see a variety of reasons their object relations with classical physics or chemistry, etc. But they shall see the philosopher, as he can see them due to the specificity of philosophy, its ties to the history of philosophy, attention to methodology and epistemology. Recall that in medieval philosophy, much depended on the relationship of theology and philosophy, and Thomas Aquinas argued that "philosophy - the servant of theology." Recall the medieval deism, the division of philosophy and religion (Muslim tradition in dispute between Al Ghazali and Ibn Rushd). This example allows us to introduce in the imagination the formation of two traditions in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: interdisciplinary relationship between theology and philosophy, theology, astronomy and physics (Dzh.Bruno, Galileo), as well as the explicit subordination and secondary science and philosophy, that is, the presence hierarchy in the separation sciences.      

Disciplinary segregation and science - concepts are not identical. Science came to the disciplinary division. Recall the philosophers of Plato and Aristotle, which included everything: physics and metaphysics. Although Heidegger in his "Basic concepts of metaphysics" (1929-1930) and considered it necessary to note that Plato is gaining strength division of philosophy into logic, "fyusiku" ethics and its transformation into a "episteme" - science, a discipline that gives knowledge although it relates to a negatively. In our view, it is possible to recognize that the theoretical knowledge held in the classical science emerged yet in a particular form of disciplinary knowledge. Therefore, science and discipline, and even the philosophy of how the concepts are often not distinguished and not distinguished until now. Naturally formed some important components of any discipline, namely, the existing corporate community of scientists engaged in a particular area, particular attention on their part to ensure that the accumulated activity of those who in the past engaged in this field. It also houses the criteria and evaluation of the significance of their work, the mechanisms of training for the future, for the preservation and development of this sphere. These processes have an impact, and relationship with the authorities, with representatives of other disciplines, the hierarchy between them. Thus, philosophers still remember that once philosophy was the queen of science, then this title caught theology in modern times physics, sociology, economics and so on.        

The process of differentiation of scientific disciplines is inextricably linked with H1H century, although the mechanics of its individual moments were formed back in HU11 century, and in chemistry in HU111 in. It was then that the notion of the differences of objects of different sciences, about the different types of reality. On different views Kant wrote, and the idea of differentiation specially developed Comte. Disciplinary segregation, various classifications provided in those days the rapid development of science, but now due to the fact that all argue about the necessity of interdisciplinary   studies have to ask questions about what a really discipline can still produce new knowledge? She, of course, the institute, in the framework of preparing his personnel. It is a condition of funding and budget allocation, within it a relationship between scientists and the bureaucracy. But we have to admit that the opening of a new today, will not happen without the disciplinary differences, but by themselves they probably will not provide the birth of new knowledge. As, at the time the disciplinary knowledge, becoming mature, became part down to an immature pre-scientific knowledge, and now itself becomes insufficient, a condition, resources, and not the new knowledge.                                      

Types of interdisciplinary interaction          

At the moment, we can distinguish three types of interdisciplinary interaction. Firstly, interdisciplinary interaction, biology and physics, philosophy and theory of social communication, social linguistics, etc. As part of this interaction is maintained clarity of boundaries, implying a difference of subjects, methods and results of interacting disciplines. Secondly, the creation of multidisciplinary systems, where there are no clear boundaries between disciplines. Geography, economics, international relations, cultural studies, political science are connected, for example, in a single geography or a theory predicting that developed at the crossroads of many disciplines. These disciplines interact and complement each other, creating a holistic picture of the reality of a country, region or the world of the near future. Here, the individual disciplines provide the resource base for interdisciplinary research. Thirdly, when the interdisciplinary systems science is proposed, grounded universal methodology (type of Marxist theory or call Arnold Toynbee), which can be used in individual disciplines. Such systems theory, information theory, catastrophe theory, which ignores any boundaries in science.        

In our view, it should be emphasized that the organization of interdisciplinary research, enough, more difficult and costly affair. On the one hand, their conduct must solve three types of problems, and they are related to different fields of action: methodological (see and describe the object of interdisciplinary research). Immediately raises another question: Representative, a discipline he may "see and describe, using some concepts"; organizational - creation (including financing) group of interdisciplinary researchers; Information - the provision of the results of the representatives of disciplines.        

On the other hand, our experience of such studies (seminars, conferences) indicates that the priority of interdisciplinary research results in the fact that there is in some sense the "threat" of corporate community of scientists in various specific disciplines. We believe that the hierarchy is broken inside the separate spheres of science, there is a palpable need to rethink the past one or another discipline, becoming its categorical apparatus, and even need to see the importance of non-scientific fields of knowledge.                                    

About informal logic in interdisciplinary research            

Interdisciplinary research confronts us with the fact that what we consider commonplace, true, new, is not new, and often false. Situation is rare in disciplinary investigations. In our view, the development of interdisciplinary research confronts us with the fact that, as if the principle of paraconsistent informal logic takes up on the law of contradiction, is a fundamental principle of formal logic. In fact it is not. Aristotle wrote, thinking about what you can at the same time "to go and not to go to Megara," that is, an area where at the same time "is present" and that, and another, although opposed to each other. And there is the principle of contradiction does not hold. He wrote in the Metaphysics, that in fact, the possibility of the same thing can be together (both) opposites, but in reality is not. Aristotle considered it necessary to note that the principle of contradiction is necessary to limit and, perhaps, the time will come when there is a man who understands what is really the essence of this principle in its ethical purpose, in asking moral boundaries. You can not simultaneously lie and not to lie, but you can at the same time wanting it. Here man is free, choosing one or the other possibility. But the realization of the potential of all - it is a different physics, not its non-Aristotelian. (4) By understanding the relationship between formal and multi-valued logic in the early twentieth century turned many from Polish logician Lukasiewicz who first settled the idea of ​​multi-valued logic, until his Lyutvi Zadeh fuzzy logic. On the history of the formation of this logic, and wrote many, for example, only in Russian worth remembering Ishmuratova AT, AS Karpenko, Popov VM and many others. But the main thing here is that interdisciplinary studies do not cancel and do not refute the formal logic of Aristotle, and expand it. Multiple-valued logic, extending the classical logic, only promotes interdisciplinary quest, clashes positions from different disciplines at the same time creates the possibility of participation and dialogue in research from different disciplines. For this important is the fact that within a single logical system can save classical logic and at the same time to limit the effect of the contradictions in it.                              

Philosophy and history: the experience of interdisciplinary research              

Philosophy and history have much experience of interdisciplinary interaction. For example, on the legacy of Thucydides can claim philosophy, history, and political science. Just as is the case with N. Machiavelli and this series goes on. (9) philosophy can even be defined as a history of thought about thought, although R. Rorty would would argue with that statement. There are several forms of interaction: the history of philosophy, philosophy of history, theoretical history, etc. If you approach this problem in the context of this article, then, in our view, should be to isolate the two fundamental approaches: historical and philosophical emanating from the fact that philosophy involves consideration of what were interdisciplinary cooperation in the past and, in fact, philosophical, in other words what these interactions at the moment. Of course, in this article we will denote only the general outline of this big problem, suggesting a further deploy them in another study.        

Historical and philosophical approach involves an appeal to the heritage of Plato and Aristotle, though, of course, can be considered in the context of interdisciplinary interaction of philosophy of Francis Bacon, Descartes, or, for example, Marx and Engels, remembering their "Dialectics of Nature" and so on etc. Of course, Plato's and Aristotle's classification of the sciences, pointing to different types of knowledge their field essentially still do not see the differences between them. Physics and metaphysics, philosophy and doctrine of the soul they are one and the same, they all have a philosophy. Or, if we turn to N. Machiavelli and the Renaissance, when the institutionalization of political science, it was a long process that has not ended yet. Of course, most contemporaries birth of political science associated with H1H century, and the establishment of its elements belong to Plato and Aristotle. In this case, it is important that the treatment from this perspective to the history of philosophy, in our opinion, productively, gives impetus to the birth of questions.        

Now for the second approach, in fact, modern philosophical. The philosophy of the twentieth century was mainly the philosophy of language. And this applies not only to the English-speaking analytic philosophy. The language problem was and remains important to the philosophy of science, phenomenology, existentialism, etc. It becomes clear that the basis for interdisciplinary interaction of this philosophy is, first of all, linguistics. Now relevant, in our view, along with the philosophy of language are consciousness and experience. This formulation of the problem is a new understanding of multidisciplinary research. The most natural way of internal relationships of these studies is seen in the following: experience will allow us to introduce consciousness, language provides us the opportunity to express it. One may recall in this context that the works of the American philosopher Searle, the idea of ​​intellectual experience Karl Popper, etc. Searle, for example, in his book "The rediscovery of consciousness" (1992) notes that consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by physical processes in the brain. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the philosophy of consciousness and experience not only involves the interaction of social and human sciences, but also in physics, chemistry and biology. No wonder that his position Searle calls biological naturalism.        

Along with these two approaches should be allocated and what is called the philosophy of history, or the history of the theoretical. The question of whether a history of meaning, of interest to many. By the way, not only historians and philosophers. Understandably, historians, archaeologists often try to bring the story to the individual facts, or present it as a narrative. Of course, the story is different from the basic sciences, it is, above all, has to deal with a single, unique. But this is no reason not to see the connection between the facts in the history, theory and data. The basis of any identified fact lies the theory, certain approaches and conclusions. They are so connected that it would be a vain attempt to split them strictly. And yet we think historically, but the main thing we're trying to understand why we think historically. In this we are helped by the language, consciousness and experience. It follows that the philosophy of history and the history of the theoretical possible only as a multidisciplinary research. Despite the fact that to understand the meaning of history (to foresee the future and adequately understand the past) is almost impossible, as is beyond abilities of the human mind, however, scientists will try to do it. In our view, the search in this area due to the constant human desire to build a more efficient and equitable society, to be human and to strive for a better future. 

Metaphysics and Physics          

Usually, when people talk about metaphysics, the philosophers Aristotle recall, and from closer to us in time comes to mind, first of all, Heidegger. By the way, Heidegger wrote that "... the question of the meaning of life should be put again." And further, that "Named question came today into oblivion, although our time as a number in progress, it again has a positive attitude to the" metaphysics. "(11) However, in the context of our study is of interest to question what is interesting metaphysics to physics and interesting right?      

But first, that Andronicus of Rhodes digester and publisher of manuscripts of the great philosopher of Megara, who lived two centuries later, when their publication seems to use the principle that what has been entitled by Aristotle himself, went under the name of "Physics", and everything else has been called "metaphysics." Later metaphysics interpreted in different ways. Some believe now that metaphysics - this is what comes after physics. A.N. Chanyshev sees the irony in this story. Before reaching the physics of Aristotle was called metaphysics, ie going after physics. (6) However, most researchers interpret the "meta" as something at the heart of the universe, nature, physics.        

Metaphysics (first philosophy) examines the beginning and cause of all things. In the twentieth century, is considered the most significant metaphysics (ontology) Martin Heidegger, but interesting and metaphysical reasoning Zh.P.Sartra, A.Kozheva and others. There was also a theological metaphysics as a collection of ideas identical primary idea of the Absolute. Heidegger about it thought it necessary to note that the modern European tradition, have been subjected to questioning knowledge, could call into question the human presence, as philosophy finds himself before the advent of science. Philosophy, in its opinion, embraces not only the nature and history, but also a divine being. But this is a topic for another study. We are in the context of our research we would like to draw attention to the relevance of the idea of ​​dialogue philosophical, religious and scientific thought, their multidisciplinary interaction.          

I would like to first of all be noted that the known physics come to the conclusion that modern cosmology shifts the classical notion of boundaries between physics and metaphysics, which indicates the semantic weaves the physical and metaphysical in cosmological discourse. (8) The Russian scientist A.I. Panchenko, for example, raises the question of understanding of concepts such as "transcendental physics" and "experimental metaphysics". (7) But it's not that they are suddenly interested in the same ideas of Heidegger or J., Berkeley. Now physicists level Penrose, Hawking writes about the legality of recognition of objective reality does not in itself, but as a form of its manifestation in cognitive situations on the basis of experimental observation of relevant fundamental theories.        

In the end, I would like to emphasize that the issue or issues of multidisciplinary research, their philosophical component to permit far, we have only to outline, gave some hint of the concept, which is associated with, perhaps, the prospects of development of philosophy and methodological reflection. Interdisciplinary research is, of course, non-classical type of rationality, but he inherits a long tradition of development of knowledge and understanding can still be productive.



  1. Копейкин К. Богословский и естественнонаучный взгляд на онтологическую природу мироздания// Метафизика. № 1.2011. С. 131
  2. Петров М. К. Язык. Знак. Культура М.: «Наука» ,1991
  3. Степин В.С. Теоретическое знание М., «Прогресс-Традиция», 1999.
  4. Аристотель  Сочинения в 4-х томах. М.»Мысль», 1976-1984.
  5. Ишмуратов А.Т., Карпенко А.С. и Попов В.М. О паранепротиворечивой логике// Синтаксические и семантические исследования неэкстенсиональных логик. М. «Наука», 1989.
  6. Чанышев А.Н.  Курс лекций по древней философии. – М.: Высшая школа, 1981, с. 285
  7. Панченко А.И.  Физическая реальность: трансцендентальная физика или экспериментальная метафизика? //  Философский журнал. № 1, 2008. С. 68-76.
  8. Жаров С.Н., Мещерякова Н.А. Современная космология: философские горизонты/ Под редакцией В.В.Казютинского. М. «Канон+» РООИ «Реабилитация», 2011.
  9. Анкерсмит Ф.Р. Возвышенный исторический опыт М. «Европа», 2007
  10. Мамедзаде И.Р. О философии Современные подходы, тенденции и перспективы Баку, «Текнур», 2011
  11. Хайдеггер М. Бытие и время «ФОЛИО», 2003, с.16-17.