Suchergebnisse

Any discussion about transdisciplinarity presupposes some sort of recognition of the scientific disciplines and some agreement on how they are or should be grouped or classified. This article supplies a demarcation criterion to distinguish science from non- science and discusses the way the sciences should be grouped. The first issue can be summarized by the question: (how) can scientific disciplines be distinguished from non- scientific ones? To answer this question it is necessary to sketch what in philosophy of science is called a "demarcation criterion" to distinguish between scientific and non- scientific activities. Secondly, does it make sense to recognise groups of sciences and which disciplines should be placed in each group? Does it make sense to use categories like social, hard, soft, exact, applied sciences and so forth? To answer these questions it is necessary to assess the plausibility of some of the categories traditionally used to classify the sciences. The purpose of the article is to provide an initial (yet philosophically grounded) orientation in an area in which many academics seem to wander, and sometimes to accept simplistic answers.Keywords: Demarcation criterion, groups of sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, human sciences, groups of sciences, general sciences, special sciences, transdisciplinarity, 9Theory of) modal aspects, multi-modal sciencesDisciplines: Philosophy, Philosophy of science, (Basically, all sciences are interested)

The aim of the paper is to discuss and to reflect on the experiences and challenges encountered during the North-South capacity building project on transdisciplinarity, KNOTS (Fostering Multi-Lateral Knowledge Networks of Transdisciplinary Studies to Tackle Global Challenges), which was financed by the EU through the Erasmus+ Capacity Building in Higher Education program. Despite the large body of literature on transdisciplinary approaches and projects, not many studies exist that discuss both the political and the power dimensions within transdisciplinary endeavors, especially not from a social science perspective. Based on the experiences, challenges, and progress over the course of the project, I will analyze how power relations influenced and structured KNOTS. I argue that the success of transdisciplinary North-South collaborations depends very much on awareness of power hierarchies, reflexivity, and positionality as well as different understandings of knowledge. Although differences will be highlighted regarding, for example, the aims of transdisciplinarity or the role of different understandings of science and knowledge, the paper does not aim to increase skepticism regarding transdisciplinarity. Instead, the intent of the reflections is to increase awareness of the influences of power structures and relations in transdisciplinarity projects, especially North-South collaboration projects.

The decolonization of knowledge entails various forms of transdisciplinarity, but not all forms of transdisciplinarity are decolonial. This article offers an analysis of decolonial transdisciplinarity in relation to the European sciences, its disciplines, and its methods. It identifies a "secular line," which combines with a "color line" to define the context and horizon of the European sciences. I propose that Ethnic Studies establishes a different attitude from that underlying the European sciences and represents an example of decolonial transdisciplinary thinking.