INTEGRATION OF SCIENCES IN MODERN SYNERGETIC DISCOURSE

Main Article Content

Yana Chaika

Abstract

Modern science and philosophy are entirely dependent on the globalization processes characteristic of modern socio-cultural space. Under such conditions, integration processes are an integral component of the development of any sphere of social life. Science has undergone a period of unification and unification, forming all the prerequisites for developing integration processes. The most appropriate methodology for the approval of interdisciplinary processes appears synergetics. Among interdisciplinarity distinguish academic integration of knowledge (multidisciplinarity and its varieties) and progressive (transdisciplinarity). The key goal of introducing the integration of the sciences is not the declarative unification but ensuring the two conditions of integration efficiency: the presence of a common subject (goal) of research and the formation of a common methodological arsenal for scientific research. The synergetic potential has not yet been fully disclosed among the scientific community. However, the issue of self-organization act as a promising tool for the scientific cluster of social life. Integration implies the dominance of a single science because bringing in knowledge from different sciences is dynamic and constantly changing. Therefore, the synergetic methodology, which demonstrates effectiveness in complex structures, allows for rapid and qualitative integration processes. The academic unification of the sciences does not yet demonstrate effectiveness since there is a clear need for dynamism. Transdisciplinarity under such conditions is the most progressive form of integration processes in science since this setting allows it to go beyond the framework of scientific disciplines. The blurring of the boundaries of academic disciplines allows the integration of methodologies, which ensures greater efficiency in conducting research and allows the development of new knowledge and theories. In fact, we are facing a new field of knowledge that encompasses all the available sciences and combines their potential for developing new knowledge.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

| Abstract views: 73 | PDF Downloads: 54 |

Article Details

How to Cite
Chaika, Y. . (2021). INTEGRATION OF SCIENCES IN MODERN SYNERGETIC DISCOURSE. Global Prosperity, 1(2-2), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.46489/gpj.2021-1-2-6
Section
Articles

References

Carnap, R., Hahn, H. & Neurath, O. (1929). Scientific worldview. The Vienna Circle. Vienna.

De Freitas, L., Morin, E. & Nicolescu, B. (1994). Charter of transdisciplinarity. Retrieved from: https://inters.org/Freitas-Morin-Nicolescu-Transdisciplinarity

Franko, I. (1998). Nauka ta yiyi vzayemyny z robochym klasom [Science and its relationship with the working classes]. Kolektsiya robit [Collection of works]. Kyiv, 24-40 [In Ukrainian].

Haken, H. (1982). Synergetik. New York.

Kyselyov M. (2010).Kontseptsiya “yedynoyi nauky”: filosofsʹko-metodolohichnyy aspekt [The concept of “unified science”: philosophical and methodological aspect]. Filosofsʹki dialohy. [Philosophical dialogues], 4, 22-138 [In Ukrainian].

Knyazeva, E. (2005). Synerhetychesky konstruyruemyy myr [Syergetically constructed world].Site of Sergei P. Kurdyumov.Retrieved from: http://spkurdyumov.narod.ru/KnyazevaElena.htm [In Russian].

Knyazeva, E. & Kurdyumov, S. (2003). Antropnyy pryntsyp v synerhetyke [Anthropic principle in synergetics]. Site of Sergei P. Kurdyumov. Retrieved from: http://spkurdyumov.narod.ru/Antr.htm [In Russian].

Manchul, B. (2021). The problem of unity of knowledge: from the idea of unification to the process of integration. Visnyk of the Lviv University. Series Philos.-Political Studies. Issue 36, 109–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.30970/PPS.2021.36.13

Morin, Е. (1999). La tete bien faite. Repenser la reforme О Reformer la pensee. Paris.

Nicolescu, B. (2006). Transdisciplinarity – past, present and future. Reshapingsciences, policies and practices for endogenous sustainable development,142-166.

Semeniuk, E. & Melnyk, V. (2017). Filosofiya suchasnoyi nauky i tekhniky [Philosophy of modern science and technology] Lviv. Ivan Franko Lviv National University. 364 p. [In Ukrainian].

Smuts, Y. (2018). Holism and Evolution.

IPH Digital library. Retrieved from: https://iphlib.ru/library/collection/newphilenc/document/HASH01b7ebf4f88dba4370128fb7

Stepin, V. (1994). Nauchnaya kartina mira v kul'ture rukotvornoy tsivilizatsii [Scientific picture of the world in the culture of man-made civilization]. Moskow. 274 p. [In Russian].

Tahko, T. (2021). Unity of Science (Elements in the Philosophy of Science). Cambridge. 80 p. doi: 10.1017/ 9781108581417.

Tanzella-Nitti, G. (2020). Unity of Knowledge. Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science. Retrieved from: https://inters.org/interdisciplinary-encyclopedia doi: 10.17421/2037-2329-2002-GT-8.

Telizhenko, L. (2009) Postklasychni typy tsilisnosti lyudyny. [Post-classical types of human integrity]. Nauka. Relihiya. Suspilʹstvo [Science. Religion. Society], 3, 159-166 [In Ukrainian].

Tress, B., Tress, G., & Fry, G. (2005). Defining concepts and process of knowledge production in integrative research. (Eds.) Tress B, Tress G, Fry G, Opdam P. From landscape research to landscape planning: Aspects of integration, education and application, 13-26.

Vandyshev, V. (1989). Filosofskiy analiz differentsiatsii yestestvennonauchnogo znaniya [Philosophical analysis of the differentiation of natural-scientific knowledge]. Кyiv. [In Russian].