[Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL?

[Bob Logan]

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.nisenbaum at ifrj.edu.br

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150524/6ed2ffd2/attachment.html>