Apples in the next garden

This material is a reaction to the article by Alexander Prodyakov “Interdisciplinary position of the researcher and systemic insight” (TRV-hunger No. 339 (19) dated 10.10.2021 [ 1 ]).

Why science

“Apples in the next garden always seem the most delicious” - this is an old saying. She talks a lot about our psychology, and we will turn to psychology. The theme of the article is interdisciplinary, or, more simply, intelligence. Science - gardens, apples - fruits. Gardens must be cultivated; The analogy is transparent.

For physics, the reason for the historically established division of sciences is trivial: the instability of the border of the knowledgeable with the unknown under the pressure of evolutionarily advantageous thirst for knowledge. The mechanism is simple: the place where the researchers and the interest of society, expressed in the support of science, are attracted to advance. As a result, a specific appearance of sciences is formed-a circle of preferred tasks and methods of solving, “science in general” is divided into physics, chemistry, etc. On the other side of Orion’s sleeve, the division into science could develop differently. Instead of geology, physics and chemistry, biogeology, biophysics, biochemistry could be (in earthly terminology), and the concept of pure physics or pure chemistry would have arisen later. Of course, the structure of the names would be the opposite of the earth in this case.

After a century, it turns out that some tasks lie outside of relatively mastered areas, or/and some objects are effectively studied if you apply several sciences at the same time, or/and in some cases the methods used by neighbors are effective. One way or another, physical, chemophysics, biophysics arise and are legitimized over time - institutes and institutions, magazines and books, grants and bonuses are created. Before our eyes, neuronauki appeared - neurosociology, neuroeconomics, etc. The emergence of interdisciplinaryness in science does not mean movement towards a merger, because the classical sciences continue to successfully dig deep.

A serious specialist in one of the sciences, along with a serious specialist from another, if they have mutual understanding, can do something interesting, and relatively low blood. But the external ease of obtaining results attracts hack workers, and in education creates the illusion that it makes sense to teach something interdisciplinary so that the students quickly open a new elementary particle and its impact on milk yield.

Interdisciplinaryness and Transnauki

The expression “interdisciplinary” is multi -meaning - this can be understood as “cover”, when we have two specific sciences in our hands, and one science seasoned with a corpse or awe from another, and generally empty trep. The latter is more common - it is easier to make. The popular speaker easily unclenched the mouth and sang from the screen.

What can serve as a real basis for interdisciplinary?

The most obvious is the object. It can be studied by various sciences. But interdisciplinaryness begins when the result is obtained, which could be obtained only with the joint use of several sciences, when the use of one takes into account the results of the other. You don’t have to go far for examples, we take a magazine in biochemistry, biophysics, chemistizics and physical chemistry and meticulously read.

Further, the research method, created in the interests of any one science and rooted in it, can be borrowed by another science, with some improvements. But something else is needed-for example, an electron microscope was invented in physics, now biologists are sleeping in an embrace, but new biology on the basis of biology and microscope did not occur. Microbiology from biology is nevertheless separated not as sharply as neuronauki. Maybe it's the degree of revolutionary method? Someone perceives this microscope as just another microscope. Big and scary, should live in the basement, on a separate concrete pile.

There are many aspects that differ in different sciences, and sometimes on the basis of borrowing methods or something else, for example, some important ideas, something if not interdisciplinary, then clearly important and interesting. For example, evidence -based medicine is a principle successfully laid down for natural sciences is known and traditional. In different sciences, the sources of objects and methods of choosing an object for research, methods of experiment, observation, measurement and processing of data, considerations about accuracy, error, and stability are somewhat different. In the sciences, teaching methods, methods of raising questions, views on the possibility of the final solution of problems, the presence of a postulate of objectivity, the presence and type of ethical restrictions, the methods of citation and support for authority and, probably, much more, may vary. And each of these aspects can take root in the neighboring garden and not be weed. Or help formulate a fundamental restriction and thereby improve the definition of this garden.

Several examples of the application of models of natural sciences to describe social phenomena are given in the book of Philip Bolla “Critical Mass. As some phenomena generate others. ” There are many different models in physics and it would be strange if they would not have been suitable for describing social reality - subject to targeted selection of situations for describing and sufficient boiling the picture. In the end, the mathematics used by sociologists, the same that physicists use. The difference is that physics in most cases checks the experiment and adjusts the model. In addition, in the depths of physical models are well -established elementary patterns, and this, it seems, is not in the humanitarian regions. Nevertheless, the book describes several situations when scientists studying society began moving along this path, and even these first attempts at times brought interesting results.

External questions

Regarding interdisciplinary, two groups of external issues can be asked. One group is a reflection in the outside world. A physicist, chemist and biologist can usually present a specific result. Moreover, oddly enough, in many cases a representative of one classical science can understand what the representative of another did. Of course, he will not be able to repeat the result, he can rarely evaluate how original and strongly it is, but to understand what has been done - it can often. And in some cases, the author can put a specific thing on the table or pick up the opinion of engineers or doctors who used this result. Therefore, when talking about the sparkling heights of the interception, it is useful there, waiting for the pause, to ask: what has been done? Specifically? What was done that which could not be done by two sciences separately?

The second group of external issues is about the psychology of intercessors and tranquil -bars. In which case does a person turn to this area? If he initially received two basic formations and worked all the way, combining objects, methods, etc.? Or first mastered one thing, received normal results, achieved status, and then switched to something else? And why? Failure in one direction, the pressure of life circumstances, the “requirement” of the object of the study, the indefatigable curiosity, the authority of someone met on the thorny of the scientific path, the desire to hit a lovely employee, something else? Is it not to start such a study under the hospitable wings of a trellis? The prototype of the questionnaire is ready ... and further, as usual, that is, sit down and work. Remember the joke? N. says that he goes to I., she says that he goes to N., and he himself in the library - and work, work, work.

And if one of you is interested in the fact that people write on the topic of interdisciplinary, diving on the Internet, crawl out after half an hour from trep and nonsense, squeezing his head to the shore and collapse, then I will delight him. In Wikipedia there is an article “Transdisciplinary”. Bidon with a validol armpit - and go.

Many of us are teachers

The fact that in the real nature of division into physics and chemistry there is no, that these concepts themselves are the result of evolution, students need to explain. They should understand how science is at all and why the learning process does not repeat the entire development history, but does not begin with today's state. Schoolchildren need to show the connection of subjects and the fact that in many cases several sciences need to be used in many cases to solve real life problems. You can show this connection on the example of tasks.

What is now meant by interdisciplinary tasks, what can be the pros and cons for teaching from the existence of this phenomenon, is there anything that can be used in this experience and what could be still useful and harmful under this name? There are about 200 independent references on the Internet, but this is almost always only roules about the role and importance and the list of patriarchs, who supposedly attached importance.

The benefits of applying such tasks seem to be obvious, but this is not so-any new one occupies the place of something old in teaching. Therefore, distant results must be investigated first. Actually, in any case, a rationally thinking person should act - but this is not accepted in pedagogy. Which does not exclude, however, non -directive actions - publications of collections of interdisciplinary tasks, conducting the relevant Olympiads, and the organization of options. The degree of interest in such tasks, the success of their solutions and the main thing is an objective impact on success in traditional objects and a subjective assessment of assistance in choosing a field of interest - all this will help in determining expediency. What can interdisciplinary in tasks look like?

The first, purely formal, but no longer quite meaningless option, is just a book in which there are tasks in different subjects. It is not clear how the market will accept such a book, but there is such an Olympics - this is the popular “Lomonosov tournament”, participants can try themselves in different objects and show their versatility.

The second option is a purely formal combination of tasks in one through the transfer of a number or other condition from one task to another. The number of moles of some of the results of some reaction becomes a mass in kilograms of two colliding balls. This, of course, is a mockery, but for completeness it is necessary to mention.

The third - when the solution of one problem becomes part of the other, but this is not a formal unification through the number, but a description of the stages of one process. Moreover, this process is not used in technology and its analysis is not needed by science, it is invented - but in principle it is possible. The gas (chemistry) that is released in the reaction can determine the lifting force of the balloon (physics) and the adventures of the air forces, under which the contour card (geography and tell a joke about mathematics). The artificiality of the decisive is obvious, but this is a test of the presence of versatile knowledge, and it is perceived not as a mockery, but rather as entertainment.

The fourth is a formal association in an object or process, but not in stages, but simply different questions about one thing. The Law of Archimedes (physics) - when and where he lived (history of science) - the attack of which aggressors repulsed his country (history) - in what ways (engineering)?

The fifth option is not a formal association by an object or process, but a consideration of a real life situation, for the analysis of which you need knowledge from several objects. It makes sense to deal with such tasks only on the basis of knowledge in all studied and learned individual subjects. How the geological features of the region, the psychology of women who love jewelry, and sociopsychology, influenced the political history of South Africa - are demonstrative consumption. How the physics of solar elements affect the Middle East, the geology of the hydraulic fraction of the oil reservoir and the demographic transition. In general, the processes within the body (biology) - both chemical (reactions), and physical (mass -transopur, diffusion, osmosis). Here, knowledge of several objects is required at a serious level, although for starters you can use qualitative questions as tasks when you only need to evaluate which processes from different sciences are significant.

The sixth - methods of one science are used in others, and at the same time arises - more or less complex - a task related to the science from which the method is taken. Physics all speaks in the language of mathematics and uses its methods, sometimes this leads to difficult mathematical tasks. Equations are solved both biologists and chemists, historians and linguists use mathematics, but does mathematical tasks arise? Any physical task leading to a more than a square equation will become for the student from the surprise of the interdisciplinary.

The seventh option is the most foggy and interesting. Every science is characterized by their own methods, approaches, their own spirit. The same physical problem is a chemist and a mathematician will solve, perhaps, differently. For example, physics tends to look for a small parameter in a difficult task, or first see if it has simple private cases (to control the future decision). The mathematician can act differently. In some cases, a good specialist can say: well, a mathematician (physicist, chemist ...) would have approached this problem like this ... - There are even jokes on this topic. But how do you like the task - to solve the problem from the field A, depicting the approach ordinary for the region B?

The simplest

Very natural "inter -" - sociology and psychology. Some sociologists working with questionnaires understand that the technology is fundamentally flawed. We actually want to know that the respondent thinks and feels, even better whether he will go to the square, but instead we ask him himself and carefully and carefully analyze his answers - that is, “We are looking for a lantern”.

In a physicist, this causes an example: an uncle sits in front of a socket and asks her: "What is your dear, tension?" Answer options: (1) Why do you need to know this? (2) You still ask about the frequency; (3) Oh, I'm shy; (4) I know you, sociologists, you want me; (5) I find it difficult to answer; (6) And you’ll be your eyes, they glued a signs on me: “220 V, 50 Hz”, but this, dear, lies ...

What to do? -The voltmeter is no. One of the ways to crawl to understanding-to give the same respondent to be torn to pieces by psychologists, and then compare the sociological answer about some of his side and psychological. Because psychology is closer to action than sociology. On this joyful note we will stop for now.

Leonid Ashkinazi

1. TRV-SCIENCE.ru/2021/10/mezhdisciplinarnaya-poziciya-issledovatlya-i-sistemnyj-insajt/