Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge
Identifieur interne : 000252 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000251; suivant : 000253Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge
Auteurs : S Ren BrierSource :
- Systems Research and Behavioral Science [ 1092-7026 ] ; 2000-09.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
The paper attempts to develop a non‐reductionistic and transdisciplinary view on human knowing in the light of the growing development of transdisciplinary practices and sciences. Medicine is one of the oldest; ecology and information science are some of the newer examples of radical transdisciplinarity. I discuss the lack of a recognized place and value of phenomenological knowledge in relation to the general mechanistic scientific ontology that still seems to be the only generally accepted background for the transdisciplinary areas to build on. Ontologically we cannot say much about reality except that it is very complex and dynamic, but still has structures and causal relations of a certain stability, which can be modelled mathematically. We further have to admit that there are aspects of reality that are beyond measuring. I suggest that the dualistic idea of transcendental and eternal mathematical natural laws and an algorithmic programme behind intelligence and language is rejected for its lack of ability to include the phenomenological and existential perspective of science and the practical knowledge beyond words. Instead I am promoting an epistemology, which sees science as only one aspect of our knowledge and sees human knowledge as going beyond language. An opening for the phenomenological aspect is then created in our modern scientistic and mechanistic metaphysics. I suggest a view of knowledge seen as self‐organized signification systems based on metaphysical frameworks in social practice. The interpretation of sign in a systematized knowledge framework is actually where the medical sciences started in the classical Greek tradition of Hippocrates. This non‐reductionistic framework promises to open towards a non‐Cartesian transdisciplinary understanding of the basis for the generation and communication of knowledge in society without giving up what we have gained through the rigour and the methods of the sciences and the logic of philosophical analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<433::AID-SRES369>3.0.CO;2-7
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge</title><author><name sortKey="Brier, S Ren" sort="Brier, S Ren" uniqKey="Brier S" first="S Ren" last="Brier">S Ren Brier</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<433::AID-SRES369>3.0.CO;2-7</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000252</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000252</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge</title><author><name sortKey="Brier, S Ren" sort="Brier, S Ren" uniqKey="Brier S" first="S Ren" last="Brier">S Ren Brier</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Systems Research and Behavioral Science</title><title level="j" type="sub">The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Syst. Res.</title><idno type="ISSN">1092-7026</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-1743</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-09">2000-09</date><biblScope unit="volume">17</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="433">433</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="458">458</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1092-7026</idno></series><idno type="istex">4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<433::AID-SRES369>3.0.CO;2-7</idno><idno type="ArticleID">SRES369</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1092-7026</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>chaos</term><term>embodied knowledge</term><term>episteme</term><term>frameworks of knowing</term><term>hyper‐complexity</term><term>internal realism</term><term>knowledge forms</term><term>philosophy of science</term><term>pragmatism</term><term>semiotics</term><term>sociology of science</term><term>transdisciplinary models</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">The paper attempts to develop a non‐reductionistic and transdisciplinary view on human knowing in the light of the growing development of transdisciplinary practices and sciences. Medicine is one of the oldest; ecology and information science are some of the newer examples of radical transdisciplinarity. I discuss the lack of a recognized place and value of phenomenological knowledge in relation to the general mechanistic scientific ontology that still seems to be the only generally accepted background for the transdisciplinary areas to build on. Ontologically we cannot say much about reality except that it is very complex and dynamic, but still has structures and causal relations of a certain stability, which can be modelled mathematically. We further have to admit that there are aspects of reality that are beyond measuring. I suggest that the dualistic idea of transcendental and eternal mathematical natural laws and an algorithmic programme behind intelligence and language is rejected for its lack of ability to include the phenomenological and existential perspective of science and the practical knowledge beyond words. Instead I am promoting an epistemology, which sees science as only one aspect of our knowledge and sees human knowledge as going beyond language. An opening for the phenomenological aspect is then created in our modern scientistic and mechanistic metaphysics. I suggest a view of knowledge seen as self‐organized signification systems based on metaphysical frameworks in social practice. The interpretation of sign in a systematized knowledge framework is actually where the medical sciences started in the classical Greek tradition of Hippocrates. This non‐reductionistic framework promises to open towards a non‐Cartesian transdisciplinary understanding of the basis for the generation and communication of knowledge in society without giving up what we have gained through the rigour and the methods of the sciences and the logic of philosophical analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Søren Brier</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>philosophy of science</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>transdisciplinary models</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>knowledge forms</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>frameworks of knowing</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>chaos</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>hyper‐complexity</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>sociology of science</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>episteme</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>embodied knowledge</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>internal realism</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>semiotics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>pragmatism</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>SRES369</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>The paper attempts to develop a non‐reductionistic and transdisciplinary view on human knowing in the light of the growing development of transdisciplinary practices and sciences. Medicine is one of the oldest; ecology and information science are some of the newer examples of radical transdisciplinarity. I discuss the lack of a recognized place and value of phenomenological knowledge in relation to the general mechanistic scientific ontology that still seems to be the only generally accepted background for the transdisciplinary areas to build on. Ontologically we cannot say much about reality except that it is very complex and dynamic, but still has structures and causal relations of a certain stability, which can be modelled mathematically. We further have to admit that there are aspects of reality that are beyond measuring. I suggest that the dualistic idea of transcendental and eternal mathematical natural laws and an algorithmic programme behind intelligence and language is rejected for its lack of ability to include the phenomenological and existential perspective of science and the practical knowledge beyond words. Instead I am promoting an epistemology, which sees science as only one aspect of our knowledge and sees human knowledge as going beyond language. An opening for the phenomenological aspect is then created in our modern scientistic and mechanistic metaphysics. I suggest a view of knowledge seen as self‐organized signification systems based on metaphysical frameworks in social practice. The interpretation of sign in a systematized knowledge framework is actually where the medical sciences started in the classical Greek tradition of Hippocrates. This non‐reductionistic framework promises to open towards a non‐Cartesian transdisciplinary understanding of the basis for the generation and communication of knowledge in society without giving up what we have gained through the rigour and the methods of the sciences and the logic of philosophical analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.2</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>567 x 737 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>12</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>2039</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>13349</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>81071</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>26</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>305</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>17</volume><publisherId><json:string>SRES</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>26</total><last>458</last><first>433</first></pages><issn><json:string>1092-7026</json:string></issn><issue>5</issue><author><json:item><name>B. A. Banathy</name><affiliations><json:string>International Systems Institute and Saybrook Graduate School, Salinas, California, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>J. P. van Gigch</name><affiliations><json:string>California State University, Sacramento, California, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><value>Research Article</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1099-1743</json:string></eissn><title>Systems Research and Behavioral Science</title><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1743a</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5>433::AID-SRES369>3.0.CO;2-7</json:string></doi><id>4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4</id><score>0.2343488</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2000</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content">*The present paper is a further development of the groundwork in Brier (1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999a).</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge</title><author><persName><forename type="first">Søren</forename><surname>Brier</surname></persName><note type="correspondence"><p>Correspondence: Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsveo 23, DK‐1958, Copenhagen, Denmark</p></note><affiliation>Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Systems Research and Behavioral Science</title><title level="j" type="sub">The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Syst. Res.</title><idno type="pISSN">1092-7026</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-1743</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1743a</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-09"></date><biblScope unit="volume">17</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="433">433</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="458">458</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<433::AID-SRES369>3.0.CO;2-7</idno><idno type="ArticleID">SRES369</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2000</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The paper attempts to develop a non‐reductionistic and transdisciplinary view on human knowing in the light of the growing development of transdisciplinary practices and sciences. Medicine is one of the oldest; ecology and information science are some of the newer examples of radical transdisciplinarity. I discuss the lack of a recognized place and value of phenomenological knowledge in relation to the general mechanistic scientific ontology that still seems to be the only generally accepted background for the transdisciplinary areas to build on. Ontologically we cannot say much about reality except that it is very complex and dynamic, but still has structures and causal relations of a certain stability, which can be modelled mathematically. We further have to admit that there are aspects of reality that are beyond measuring. I suggest that the dualistic idea of transcendental and eternal mathematical natural laws and an algorithmic programme behind intelligence and language is rejected for its lack of ability to include the phenomenological and existential perspective of science and the practical knowledge beyond words. Instead I am promoting an epistemology, which sees science as only one aspect of our knowledge and sees human knowledge as going beyond language. An opening for the phenomenological aspect is then created in our modern scientistic and mechanistic metaphysics. I suggest a view of knowledge seen as self‐organized signification systems based on metaphysical frameworks in social practice. The interpretation of sign in a systematized knowledge framework is actually where the medical sciences started in the classical Greek tradition of Hippocrates. This non‐reductionistic framework promises to open towards a non‐Cartesian transdisciplinary understanding of the basis for the generation and communication of knowledge in society without giving up what we have gained through the rigour and the methods of the sciences and the logic of philosophical analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>philosophy of science</term></item><item><term>transdisciplinary models</term></item><item><term>knowledge forms</term></item><item><term>frameworks of knowing</term></item><item><term>chaos</term></item><item><term>hyper‐complexity</term></item><item><term>sociology of science</term></item><item><term>episteme</term></item><item><term>embodied knowledge</term></item><item><term>internal realism</term></item><item><term>semiotics</term></item><item><term>pragmatism</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>article-category</head><item><term>Research Article</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2000-01-13">Received</change><change when="2000-07-02">Registration</change><change when="2000-09">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisherName><publisherLoc>Chichester, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1743a</doi><issn type="print">1092-7026</issn><issn type="electronic">1099-1743</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="SRES"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en" sort="SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE">Systems Research and Behavioral Science</title><title type="subtitle">The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research</title><title type="short">Syst. Res.</title></titleGroup><selfCitationGroup><citation type="ancestor" xml:id="cit1"><journalTitle>Systems Research</journalTitle><accessionId ref="info:x-wiley/issn/07317239">0731-7239</accessionId><accessionId ref="info:x-wiley/issn/10991735">1099-1735</accessionId><pubYear year="1996">1996</pubYear><vol>13</vol><issue>4</issue></citation></selfCitationGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="50"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<>1.0.CO;2-1</doi><titleGroup><title type="specialIssueTitle">"General Systems" Yearbook of the International Society for the Systems Sciences 1999</title></titleGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="17">17</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">5</numbering></numberingGroup><creators><creator xml:id="sped1" creatorRole="sponsoringEditor" affiliationRef="#sp1"><personName><givenNames>B. A.</givenNames><familyName>Banathy</familyName></personName></creator><creator xml:id="sped2" creatorRole="sponsoringEditor" affiliationRef="#sp2"><personName><givenNames>J. P.</givenNames><familyName>van Gigch</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="sp1" countryCode="US" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>International Systems Institute and Saybrook Graduate School, Salinas, California, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="sp2" countryCode="US" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>California State University, Sacramento, California, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><coverDate startDate="2000-09">September/October 2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="3" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<433::AID-SRES369>3.0.CO;2-7</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="SRES369"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="26"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Research Article</title><title type="tocHeading1">Research Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="manuscriptReceived" date="2000-01-13"></event><event type="manuscriptAccepted" date="2000-07-02"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2000-09-15"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2000-09-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:JWSART34_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-04"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-08"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-11-04"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">433</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">458</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsveo 23, DK‐1958, Copenhagen, Denmark</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:SRES.SRES369.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="12"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="35"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en">Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge<link href="#fn1">*</link></title><title type="short" xml:lang="en">Trans‐Scientific Frameworks of Knowing</title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="au1" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Søren</givenNames><familyName>Brier</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="af1" countryCode="DK" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en" type="author"><keyword xml:id="kwd1">philosophy of science</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd2">transdisciplinary models</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd3">knowledge forms</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd4">frameworks of knowing</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd5">chaos</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd6">hyper‐complexity</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd7">sociology of science</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd8">episteme</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd9">embodied knowledge</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd10">internal realism</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd11">semiotics</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd12">pragmatism</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>The paper attempts to develop a non‐reductionistic and transdisciplinary view on human knowing in the light of the growing development of transdisciplinary practices and sciences. Medicine is one of the oldest; ecology and information science are some of the newer examples of radical transdisciplinarity. I discuss the lack of a recognized place and value of phenomenological knowledge in relation to the general mechanistic scientific ontology that still seems to be the only generally accepted background for the transdisciplinary areas to build on. Ontologically we cannot say much about reality except that it is very complex and dynamic, but still has structures and causal relations of a certain stability, which can be modelled mathematically. We further have to admit that there are aspects of reality that are beyond measuring. I suggest that the dualistic idea of transcendental and eternal mathematical natural laws and an algorithmic programme behind intelligence and language is rejected for its lack of ability to include the phenomenological and existential perspective of science and the practical knowledge beyond words. Instead I am promoting an epistemology, which sees science as only one aspect of our knowledge and sees human knowledge as going beyond language. An opening for the phenomenological aspect is then created in our modern scientistic and mechanistic metaphysics. I suggest a view of knowledge seen as self‐organized signification systems based on metaphysical frameworks in social practice. The interpretation of sign in a systematized knowledge framework is actually where the medical sciences started in the classical Greek tradition of Hippocrates. This non‐reductionistic framework promises to open towards a non‐Cartesian transdisciplinary understanding of the basis for the generation and communication of knowledge in society without giving up what we have gained through the rigour and the methods of the sciences and the logic of philosophical analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="fn1"><label>*</label><p>The present paper is a further development of the groundwork in Brier (1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999a).</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Trans‐Scientific Frameworks of Knowing</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge*</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Søren</namePart><namePart type="family">Brier</namePart><affiliation>Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark</affiliation><description>Correspondence: Department of Economics and Natural Resources, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsveo 23, DK‐1958, Copenhagen, Denmark</description><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Chichester, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-09</dateIssued><dateCaptured encoding="w3cdtf">2000-01-13</dateCaptured><dateValid encoding="w3cdtf">2000-07-02</dateValid><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">12</extent><extent unit="references">35</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">The paper attempts to develop a non‐reductionistic and transdisciplinary view on human knowing in the light of the growing development of transdisciplinary practices and sciences. Medicine is one of the oldest; ecology and information science are some of the newer examples of radical transdisciplinarity. I discuss the lack of a recognized place and value of phenomenological knowledge in relation to the general mechanistic scientific ontology that still seems to be the only generally accepted background for the transdisciplinary areas to build on. Ontologically we cannot say much about reality except that it is very complex and dynamic, but still has structures and causal relations of a certain stability, which can be modelled mathematically. We further have to admit that there are aspects of reality that are beyond measuring. I suggest that the dualistic idea of transcendental and eternal mathematical natural laws and an algorithmic programme behind intelligence and language is rejected for its lack of ability to include the phenomenological and existential perspective of science and the practical knowledge beyond words. Instead I am promoting an epistemology, which sees science as only one aspect of our knowledge and sees human knowledge as going beyond language. An opening for the phenomenological aspect is then created in our modern scientistic and mechanistic metaphysics. I suggest a view of knowledge seen as self‐organized signification systems based on metaphysical frameworks in social practice. The interpretation of sign in a systematized knowledge framework is actually where the medical sciences started in the classical Greek tradition of Hippocrates. This non‐reductionistic framework promises to open towards a non‐Cartesian transdisciplinary understanding of the basis for the generation and communication of knowledge in society without giving up what we have gained through the rigour and the methods of the sciences and the logic of philosophical analysis. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><note type="content">*The present paper is a further development of the groundwork in Brier (1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999a).</note><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>philosophy of science</topic><topic>transdisciplinary models</topic><topic>knowledge forms</topic><topic>frameworks of knowing</topic><topic>chaos</topic><topic>hyper‐complexity</topic><topic>sociology of science</topic><topic>episteme</topic><topic>embodied knowledge</topic><topic>internal realism</topic><topic>semiotics</topic><topic>pragmatism</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Systems Research and Behavioral Science</title><subTitle>The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Syst. Res.</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">B. A.</namePart><namePart type="family">Banathy</namePart><affiliation>International Systems Institute and Saybrook Graduate School, Salinas, California, USA</affiliation></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">J. P.</namePart><namePart type="family">van Gigch</namePart><affiliation>California State University, Sacramento, California, USA</affiliation></name><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Research Article</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">1092-7026</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1099-1743</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1743a</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">SRES</identifier><part><date>2000</date><detail type="title"><title>"General Systems" Yearbook of the International Society for the Systems Sciences 1999</title></detail><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>17</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>433</start><end>458</end><total>26</total></extent></part></relatedItem><relatedItem type="preceding"><titleInfo><title>Systems Research</title></titleInfo><identifier type="ISSN">0731-7239</identifier><identifier type="ISSN">1099-1735</identifier><part><date point="end">1996</date><detail type="volume"><caption>last vol.</caption><number>13</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>last no.</caption><number>4</number></detail></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/1099-1743(200009/10)17:5<433::AID-SRES369>3.0.CO;2-7</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">SRES369</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/EpistemeV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000252 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000252 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= EpistemeV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:4E4877A29B9DF1B26AC59EEFAFF4D8C3FE9C5BE4
|texte= Trans‐scientific frameworks of knowing: complementarity views of the different types of human knowledge
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |