评估跨学科性:跨学科工作并不总是好事

Dominikus Sukristiono
{"title":"评估跨学科性:跨学科工作并不总是好事","authors":"Dominikus Sukristiono","doi":"10.24071/ret.v11i2.7494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In addition to novelty and relevance, interdisciplinarity seems to be an imperative predicate in the scientific works carried out in Indonesia. Unfortunately, research on the interdisciplinarity itself, particularly from the perspective of philosophy of science, either descriptive or normative, i.e., what and how interdisciplinary has been (and should be) done is still a desideratum. Through database and normative-philosophical analysis, this article shows that most of the interdisciplinary works hitherto carried out are either additive or interpretative/take-over in nature. Such works would be bad scientific practices. Good interdisciplinary works presuppose the existence of interdisciplinary material objects and their formal ones. These normative requirements, however, lead to a dilemma which should be faced by those who work interdisciplinarily.","PeriodicalId":241621,"journal":{"name":"Retorik: Jurnal Ilmu Humaniora","volume":"112 49","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mengkaji Interdisiplinaritas: Tak Selamanya Kerja Interdisipliner Itu Baik\",\"authors\":\"Dominikus Sukristiono\",\"doi\":\"10.24071/ret.v11i2.7494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In addition to novelty and relevance, interdisciplinarity seems to be an imperative predicate in the scientific works carried out in Indonesia. Unfortunately, research on the interdisciplinarity itself, particularly from the perspective of philosophy of science, either descriptive or normative, i.e., what and how interdisciplinary has been (and should be) done is still a desideratum. Through database and normative-philosophical analysis, this article shows that most of the interdisciplinary works hitherto carried out are either additive or interpretative/take-over in nature. Such works would be bad scientific practices. Good interdisciplinary works presuppose the existence of interdisciplinary material objects and their formal ones. These normative requirements, however, lead to a dilemma which should be faced by those who work interdisciplinarily.\",\"PeriodicalId\":241621,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Retorik: Jurnal Ilmu Humaniora\",\"volume\":\"112 49\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Retorik: Jurnal Ilmu Humaniora\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24071/ret.v11i2.7494\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Retorik: Jurnal Ilmu Humaniora","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24071/ret.v11i2.7494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

除了新颖性和相关性之外,跨学科性似乎也是印度尼西亚所开展的科学工作的必要前提。遗憾的是,关于跨学科本身的研究,特别是从科学哲学的角度,无论是描述性还是规范性的,即跨学科已经(和应该)做了什么和如何做,仍然是一个需要解决的问题。本文通过数据库和规范性哲学分析表明,迄今为止开展的大多数跨学科工作要么是添加性的,要么是解释性/接管性的。这样的工作是不好的科学实践。好的跨学科工作以跨学科物质对象及其形式对象的存在为前提。然而,这些规范性要求导致了跨学科工作的人们应该面对的两难境地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mengkaji Interdisiplinaritas: Tak Selamanya Kerja Interdisipliner Itu Baik
In addition to novelty and relevance, interdisciplinarity seems to be an imperative predicate in the scientific works carried out in Indonesia. Unfortunately, research on the interdisciplinarity itself, particularly from the perspective of philosophy of science, either descriptive or normative, i.e., what and how interdisciplinary has been (and should be) done is still a desideratum. Through database and normative-philosophical analysis, this article shows that most of the interdisciplinary works hitherto carried out are either additive or interpretative/take-over in nature. Such works would be bad scientific practices. Good interdisciplinary works presuppose the existence of interdisciplinary material objects and their formal ones. These normative requirements, however, lead to a dilemma which should be faced by those who work interdisciplinarily.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信