![]() | Cognitive science C‑class ( inactive) | ||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article (to the extent that it makes any sense at all) advocates a narrow perspective that derives, I think, from a fringe scientific movement, and makes a classic non-NPOV claim: "Transdisciplinarity is nevertheless radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity because of its goal, the understanding of the present world, which cannot be accomplished in the framework of disciplinary research." This can be fixed quite simply: say "According to so-and-so,..." Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added citation needed tags to relevant sentences, and removed the NPOV tag as it seems clear this is the position of Nicolescu. - Roy Boy 02:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Much of the main entry is plagiarized verbatim from pp. 44-47 of Nicolescu's _Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity_. The examples of plagiarism I found all occurred in the section heading beginning "Transdisciplinarity as a principle..." --jbardzel 22:31, 13 August, 2008
Let me apologize in advance if my tone sometimes verges into sarcasm. I am actually trying to be helpful. Please try rewriting this article so that it makes some sense. There are interesting ideas here - they just need to be explained in comprehensible terms! If there are language problems, get some assistance.
Currently, the article states:
Reading the preceding discussion (in the article), it's no wonder why people are confused! And by the way, what is the "huge potential of transdisciplinarity"?
Multidisciplinary: the juxtaposition of disciplines in an additive rather than integrative and interactive fashion, producing an encyclopedic alignment of multiple perspectives. (Klein 2002)
Interdisciplinarity: several unrelated academic disciplines are involved in the research project in a way that forces them to cross subject boundaries. The concerned disciplines integrate disciplinary knowledge in order to create new knowledge and theory and achieve a common research goal.(Tress et al. 2006) (unrelated means they have contrasting research paradigms)
Transdisciplinarity: a research project that involves academic researchers from different unrelated disciplines as well as non-academic participants to create new knowledge theory and to research a common question. transdisciplinarity combines interdisciplinarity with a participatory approach.(Tress et al. 2006)
So in short (and my own terms): Multidisciplinary is the SUM of knowledge of diverse disciplines. (1+1=2) Interdisciplinarity is the sum of knowledge of diverse disciplines PLUS the creation of extra knowledge because of the interaction between the disciplines. (1+1>2) Transdisciplinarity is the same as interdisciplinarity, only also non-academic participants (stakeholders in the society like farmers, civilians, entrepreneurs) share their knowledge. (1+1+1>3) Melissa88 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
LEAD PARAGRAPH:
SECTION:
OK? Now the next sections should discuss some of the alternatives:
A Charter of Transdisciplinarity was adopted (by whom? why? Too much port?) at the 1st World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrabida, Portugal, november 1994).
Plenty of manifestos are issued. Very few of them matter. Does this one?
well, HOW?
In his work On Transdisciplinarity, Jürgen Mittelstrass argues that interdisciplinarity is actually transdisciplinarity:
I must confess that, despite having read the above quotation three times, I have absolutely no idea what Mittelstrauss is talking about. It doesn't commute? You mean, you walk between the buildings instead of taking the bus? I like the idea of hovering above the disciplines like an absolute spirit, though -- can't we do that? Man, I could really fix some things at my university! And how does all of this add up to showing that interdisciplinarity is in fact transdisciplinarity? Is this good? Bad?
Following, this is NOT the correct way to insert a reference - please see Citing Sources/Example Style
The paper can be found at this link: this link - it is near the end of the document.
(Please tell us who this is.)
(According to Nicolescu),
Whoo boy, I like that. Now I know what you're talking about. At my university, we have grass, sidewalks, and trees between the disciplines. Across the disciplines, we have arrogance. And unfortunately quite a few of our faculty seem to be beyond all discipline -- still showing up drunk to class, etc.
But do you mean "beyond all discipline" or do you really mean "beyond all disciplines?" The latter, I think.
As opposed to, say, the absent world? The future world? The past? You mean historians can't use this?
You are saying, "Unity of knowledge is one of the imperatives of the present world."
What do you mean, "unity of knowledge"? That all knowledge should be unified by one, underlying, horrifyingly reductionistic principle? Probably. Well, what is it? Love?
Please deal with these like this: 1, 2, and 3, and define what is meant by these terms.
It seems to me it would be full of noise. What sort of information? Stray television broadcasts?
Why is Reality capitalized? To mean some special reality? All of reality? Or this author's reality?
OK, I know what you're talking about now! I've had several levels of reality get dynamic on me, I think. Once, I had a little too much to drink (Biophysical Reality) and, later, fell off my bicycle (Geophysical Reality). It didn't occur to me at the time that I wasn't being transdisciplinary! Actually, I felt like an idiot. --But, anyway, what the heck does Nicolescu mean?
I really like "nourish." Wow, it has been a really long time since I felt nourished by my colleagues. Of course I try to clarify things for them, but they won't listen. Wait -- by nourish, you're not talking about, like, a feeding tube?
Could you please give an example?
The above paragraph has me thinking that the time has come to abandon all three of these terms.
Look, you're writing this as if it is a Great Truth Handed Down from On High. Instead, make it clear that this is Nicolescu's view.
Incidentally, this material hasn't been copied verbatim from anything copyrighted... has it?
Bryan 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that this material has indeed been plagiarized verbatim from Basarab Nicolescu's _Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity_. Many of the quotes you (Brian) write and ask for clarification of are pulled literally off pages 44-7, including the eccentric capitalization of "Reality" and the confusing distinctions among multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I felt I needed to do so because there is undeniable plagiarism all over this entry. --jbardzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbardzel ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a pile of narrow-minded agressivity I read from this "Bryan"!! If you are so interested in this notion of transdisciplinarity, why are you unable to find out who Nicolescu is, instead of rhetorically and arrogantly asking who he is on this discussion page?... Very sad attitude, definitely nowhere near an inter- or trans-disciplinary attitude! And by the way, the proposed definitions from Tress et al. are really lousy and inaccurate - so they'd better not be put in the Wikipedia article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.98.165 ( talk) 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to publish original research. However, this material could be summarized as a subsection of the above section ("Transdisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Multidisciplinarity"), but it is going to need a LOT of work.
First of all, who are these people? Where are they from? What do they do? Are they crackpots? Are they respected scientists?
What do you mean, "framework for" ? Do you mean that this OUGHT to be the framework, but isn't? Do you mean that this is generally accepted (which it isn't)?
What is "it"? The framework, the structure, or an object from outer space?
With apologies, this simply isn't comprehensible. I think what you mean is that the nature of transdisciplinarity becomes clear when the four central questions of biological research are graphed against four distinct levels of analysis.
HOWEVER, you do NOT explain just HOW this makes everything clear. Could you please give an example of what goes into those little boxes in the matrix? And, please forgive me if I am dense, but how do I see the nature of transdisciplinarity here? Let's take, for example, a chicken. Let's suppose that Dave is interested in the ontogeny of the chicken, while Alice, bless her, is interested in the cause of the chicken. Where is the transdisciplinarity? In the chicken?
Well, they're not in italics. And, for all of the above, you mean "These guys say that..." And just out of curiosity, has anyone responded by suggesting that their scheme is reductionistic and totalizing? Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence: "The framework for those sciences and disciplines that deal with `life sciences´ (e.g. Anthropology / Human Sciences) becomes clear when, based on the matrix with the four central questions of biological research (causation, ontogeny, adaptation, phylogeny) one asks and at the same time takes the levels of complexity (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group) at which the questions are aimed into account." is (almost wordly) already standard in the following (at least four) encyclopedias (tree printed between 1999 and 2004 in Heidelberg by publisher: Spektrum Verlag; e.g. head words like "Interdisziplinarität" and "Transdisziplinarität"): (1) "Lexikon der Biologie" (15 volumes), (2) "Lexikon der Neurowissenschaft" (4 volumes), (3) "Lexikon der Psychologie" (5 volumes) and (4) in print in an encyclopedia in several languages (English, French, German) by Armin Heymer (from Brunoy in France).
Instead of editing this article, it might be wise to read "Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Context of definition, theory and the new discourse of problem solving" (2002, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems) by Julie Thompson Klein. The article gives a historical overview of the major definitions of transdisciplinarity. An extended summary of this article could easily (and understandably) replace present article here on Wikipedia. Most definitions and important persons (like presented in Wiki-article) will be explained. Melissa88 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Could we please merge transdisciplinary with interdisciplinary ? Thank you. Settdigger ( talk) 09:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Let the scholars argue between and betwixt, and the difference between the word "between" and the word "across." If I am a biophysicist, am I working "between" (inter) biology and physics or "across" (trans) biology and physics? Yeah, it's a thinker all right. But: a common sense reader will regard them as virtually identical. Thanks - Settdigger ( talk) 09:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You can not merge inter and trans. inter (between) stays with categories (e.g. disciplins) while trans(beyond) tries to dissolve them. It is a huge difference: In trying to dissolve fixed Categories (e.g. disciplines) transdisciplinarity respects the infinity of Human beings. This includes CrackHeads, Mothers and many more. If you think they do not have a discipline (and thus are irrelevant to transdisciplinarity): It is easy to create one for them.)
Transdisciplinarity is not merely a scientific endeavour but a chance to include and dissolve borders around the globe. A great chance to move Common Sense from idiocy to the 21st century. Every perspective is unique. We do not know a thing. Therefore every perspective is absolutely relevant to discuss what "good"-life is about or how limited commons should be used. Check transtitut.org (only in german -- sorry) - a crackhead from Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:47C0:331C:1418:5E5E:52B2:B768 ( talk) 09:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
According to one of the engines ("BADWARE.INFO") used in VirusTotal scans, the first site linked in the "External links" section (titled "Integral Research Center") is a malicious destination. AndrewOne ( talk) 19:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm just getting my head into the maintenance template and the discussions here, I was considering removing the maintenance template, but I believe it should remain. I am summarising the status of the article and talk pages as of 19/05/21, I may be able to edit later, but hope this might also be useful for others.
Of the other sections on this Talk as of today:
![]() | Cognitive science C‑class ( inactive) | ||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 October 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article (to the extent that it makes any sense at all) advocates a narrow perspective that derives, I think, from a fringe scientific movement, and makes a classic non-NPOV claim: "Transdisciplinarity is nevertheless radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity because of its goal, the understanding of the present world, which cannot be accomplished in the framework of disciplinary research." This can be fixed quite simply: say "According to so-and-so,..." Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added citation needed tags to relevant sentences, and removed the NPOV tag as it seems clear this is the position of Nicolescu. - Roy Boy 02:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Much of the main entry is plagiarized verbatim from pp. 44-47 of Nicolescu's _Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity_. The examples of plagiarism I found all occurred in the section heading beginning "Transdisciplinarity as a principle..." --jbardzel 22:31, 13 August, 2008
Let me apologize in advance if my tone sometimes verges into sarcasm. I am actually trying to be helpful. Please try rewriting this article so that it makes some sense. There are interesting ideas here - they just need to be explained in comprehensible terms! If there are language problems, get some assistance.
Currently, the article states:
Reading the preceding discussion (in the article), it's no wonder why people are confused! And by the way, what is the "huge potential of transdisciplinarity"?
Multidisciplinary: the juxtaposition of disciplines in an additive rather than integrative and interactive fashion, producing an encyclopedic alignment of multiple perspectives. (Klein 2002)
Interdisciplinarity: several unrelated academic disciplines are involved in the research project in a way that forces them to cross subject boundaries. The concerned disciplines integrate disciplinary knowledge in order to create new knowledge and theory and achieve a common research goal.(Tress et al. 2006) (unrelated means they have contrasting research paradigms)
Transdisciplinarity: a research project that involves academic researchers from different unrelated disciplines as well as non-academic participants to create new knowledge theory and to research a common question. transdisciplinarity combines interdisciplinarity with a participatory approach.(Tress et al. 2006)
So in short (and my own terms): Multidisciplinary is the SUM of knowledge of diverse disciplines. (1+1=2) Interdisciplinarity is the sum of knowledge of diverse disciplines PLUS the creation of extra knowledge because of the interaction between the disciplines. (1+1>2) Transdisciplinarity is the same as interdisciplinarity, only also non-academic participants (stakeholders in the society like farmers, civilians, entrepreneurs) share their knowledge. (1+1+1>3) Melissa88 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
LEAD PARAGRAPH:
SECTION:
OK? Now the next sections should discuss some of the alternatives:
A Charter of Transdisciplinarity was adopted (by whom? why? Too much port?) at the 1st World Congress of Transdisciplinarity (Convento da Arrabida, Portugal, november 1994).
Plenty of manifestos are issued. Very few of them matter. Does this one?
well, HOW?
In his work On Transdisciplinarity, Jürgen Mittelstrass argues that interdisciplinarity is actually transdisciplinarity:
I must confess that, despite having read the above quotation three times, I have absolutely no idea what Mittelstrauss is talking about. It doesn't commute? You mean, you walk between the buildings instead of taking the bus? I like the idea of hovering above the disciplines like an absolute spirit, though -- can't we do that? Man, I could really fix some things at my university! And how does all of this add up to showing that interdisciplinarity is in fact transdisciplinarity? Is this good? Bad?
Following, this is NOT the correct way to insert a reference - please see Citing Sources/Example Style
The paper can be found at this link: this link - it is near the end of the document.
(Please tell us who this is.)
(According to Nicolescu),
Whoo boy, I like that. Now I know what you're talking about. At my university, we have grass, sidewalks, and trees between the disciplines. Across the disciplines, we have arrogance. And unfortunately quite a few of our faculty seem to be beyond all discipline -- still showing up drunk to class, etc.
But do you mean "beyond all discipline" or do you really mean "beyond all disciplines?" The latter, I think.
As opposed to, say, the absent world? The future world? The past? You mean historians can't use this?
You are saying, "Unity of knowledge is one of the imperatives of the present world."
What do you mean, "unity of knowledge"? That all knowledge should be unified by one, underlying, horrifyingly reductionistic principle? Probably. Well, what is it? Love?
Please deal with these like this: 1, 2, and 3, and define what is meant by these terms.
It seems to me it would be full of noise. What sort of information? Stray television broadcasts?
Why is Reality capitalized? To mean some special reality? All of reality? Or this author's reality?
OK, I know what you're talking about now! I've had several levels of reality get dynamic on me, I think. Once, I had a little too much to drink (Biophysical Reality) and, later, fell off my bicycle (Geophysical Reality). It didn't occur to me at the time that I wasn't being transdisciplinary! Actually, I felt like an idiot. --But, anyway, what the heck does Nicolescu mean?
I really like "nourish." Wow, it has been a really long time since I felt nourished by my colleagues. Of course I try to clarify things for them, but they won't listen. Wait -- by nourish, you're not talking about, like, a feeding tube?
Could you please give an example?
The above paragraph has me thinking that the time has come to abandon all three of these terms.
Look, you're writing this as if it is a Great Truth Handed Down from On High. Instead, make it clear that this is Nicolescu's view.
Incidentally, this material hasn't been copied verbatim from anything copyrighted... has it?
Bryan 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm that this material has indeed been plagiarized verbatim from Basarab Nicolescu's _Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity_. Many of the quotes you (Brian) write and ask for clarification of are pulled literally off pages 44-7, including the eccentric capitalization of "Reality" and the confusing distinctions among multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I felt I needed to do so because there is undeniable plagiarism all over this entry. --jbardzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbardzel ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow, what a pile of narrow-minded agressivity I read from this "Bryan"!! If you are so interested in this notion of transdisciplinarity, why are you unable to find out who Nicolescu is, instead of rhetorically and arrogantly asking who he is on this discussion page?... Very sad attitude, definitely nowhere near an inter- or trans-disciplinary attitude! And by the way, the proposed definitions from Tress et al. are really lousy and inaccurate - so they'd better not be put in the Wikipedia article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.143.98.165 ( talk) 18:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to publish original research. However, this material could be summarized as a subsection of the above section ("Transdisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Multidisciplinarity"), but it is going to need a LOT of work.
First of all, who are these people? Where are they from? What do they do? Are they crackpots? Are they respected scientists?
What do you mean, "framework for" ? Do you mean that this OUGHT to be the framework, but isn't? Do you mean that this is generally accepted (which it isn't)?
What is "it"? The framework, the structure, or an object from outer space?
With apologies, this simply isn't comprehensible. I think what you mean is that the nature of transdisciplinarity becomes clear when the four central questions of biological research are graphed against four distinct levels of analysis.
HOWEVER, you do NOT explain just HOW this makes everything clear. Could you please give an example of what goes into those little boxes in the matrix? And, please forgive me if I am dense, but how do I see the nature of transdisciplinarity here? Let's take, for example, a chicken. Let's suppose that Dave is interested in the ontogeny of the chicken, while Alice, bless her, is interested in the cause of the chicken. Where is the transdisciplinarity? In the chicken?
Well, they're not in italics. And, for all of the above, you mean "These guys say that..." And just out of curiosity, has anyone responded by suggesting that their scheme is reductionistic and totalizing? Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence: "The framework for those sciences and disciplines that deal with `life sciences´ (e.g. Anthropology / Human Sciences) becomes clear when, based on the matrix with the four central questions of biological research (causation, ontogeny, adaptation, phylogeny) one asks and at the same time takes the levels of complexity (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group) at which the questions are aimed into account." is (almost wordly) already standard in the following (at least four) encyclopedias (tree printed between 1999 and 2004 in Heidelberg by publisher: Spektrum Verlag; e.g. head words like "Interdisziplinarität" and "Transdisziplinarität"): (1) "Lexikon der Biologie" (15 volumes), (2) "Lexikon der Neurowissenschaft" (4 volumes), (3) "Lexikon der Psychologie" (5 volumes) and (4) in print in an encyclopedia in several languages (English, French, German) by Armin Heymer (from Brunoy in France).
Instead of editing this article, it might be wise to read "Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Context of definition, theory and the new discourse of problem solving" (2002, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems) by Julie Thompson Klein. The article gives a historical overview of the major definitions of transdisciplinarity. An extended summary of this article could easily (and understandably) replace present article here on Wikipedia. Most definitions and important persons (like presented in Wiki-article) will be explained. Melissa88 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Could we please merge transdisciplinary with interdisciplinary ? Thank you. Settdigger ( talk) 09:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Let the scholars argue between and betwixt, and the difference between the word "between" and the word "across." If I am a biophysicist, am I working "between" (inter) biology and physics or "across" (trans) biology and physics? Yeah, it's a thinker all right. But: a common sense reader will regard them as virtually identical. Thanks - Settdigger ( talk) 09:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
You can not merge inter and trans. inter (between) stays with categories (e.g. disciplins) while trans(beyond) tries to dissolve them. It is a huge difference: In trying to dissolve fixed Categories (e.g. disciplines) transdisciplinarity respects the infinity of Human beings. This includes CrackHeads, Mothers and many more. If you think they do not have a discipline (and thus are irrelevant to transdisciplinarity): It is easy to create one for them.)
Transdisciplinarity is not merely a scientific endeavour but a chance to include and dissolve borders around the globe. A great chance to move Common Sense from idiocy to the 21st century. Every perspective is unique. We do not know a thing. Therefore every perspective is absolutely relevant to discuss what "good"-life is about or how limited commons should be used. Check transtitut.org (only in german -- sorry) - a crackhead from Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:47C0:331C:1418:5E5E:52B2:B768 ( talk) 09:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
According to one of the engines ("BADWARE.INFO") used in VirusTotal scans, the first site linked in the "External links" section (titled "Integral Research Center") is a malicious destination. AndrewOne ( talk) 19:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm just getting my head into the maintenance template and the discussions here, I was considering removing the maintenance template, but I believe it should remain. I am summarising the status of the article and talk pages as of 19/05/21, I may be able to edit later, but hope this might also be useful for others.
Of the other sections on this Talk as of today: