Synopses & Reviews
Our current intellectual system provides us with a far more complete and accurate understanding of nature and ourselves than was available in any previous society. This gain in understanding has arisen from two sources: the use of the 'scientific method', and the breaking up of our intellectual enterprise into increasingly narrower disciplines and research programs. However, we have failed to keep these narrow specialities connected to the intellectual enterprise as a whole. The author demonstrates that this causes a number of difficulties. We have no viewpoint from which we can understand the relationships between the disciplines and lack a forum for adjudicating situations where different disciplines give conflicting answers to the same problem. We seriously underestimate the differences in methodology and in the nature of principles in the various branches of science. This provocative and wide-ranging book provides a detailed analysis and possible solutions for dealing with this problem.
Review
This very valuable book presents a stunning case for the necessity of multidisciplinary studies. It demonstrates, through impressive quantitative and logical argument, that reductionist paradigms are insufficient to tackle the compelling questions raised by highly complex systemsmuch less to solve most of the problems facing todays college students.”Bryan Pfaffenberger, University of Virginia
Review
"Refreshingly bold in his approach, the author is not merely concerned with the "advantages" or "attractiveness" of multidisciplinary approaches to contemporary problems. Rather, he argues in a robust manner for the necessity of multidisciplinary discourse. . . . The book is written in an accessible style that is far from dry and, without sliding into flippancy, pithy humour is evident throughout."Patrick J. J. Phillips
Review
"This very important book provides a careful look at the inadequacies of our present approach to understanding and learning. There has been an explosion of work focusing on complexity, but Kline does what most of this work does not do: he both identifies the deficiencies of reductionism and provides a structure for moving toward complexity." Don E. Kash, George Mason University
Synopsis
“This very valuable book presents a stunning case for the necessity of multidisciplinary studies. It demonstrates, through impressive quantitative and logical argument, that reductionist paradigms are insufficient to tackle the compelling questions raised by highly complex systems—much less to solve most of the problems facing todays college students.”—Bryan Pfaffenberger, University of Virginia
“This very important book provides a careful look at the inadequacies of our present approach to understanding and learning. There has been an explosion of work focusing on complexity, but Kline does what most of this work does not do: he both identifies the deficiencies of reductionism and provides a structure for moving toward complexity.” —Don E. Kash, George Mason University
Synopsis
A careful critique of our present approach of understanding and learning, putting the case for a multidisciplinary approach.
Description
Includes bibliographical references (p. [319]-329) and index.
Table of Contents
Preface; 1. Introduction; Part I. The System Concept: 2. Systems, domains, and truth assertions; 3. Sysreps and the human mind; Part II. Complexity: 4. An index for complexity; 5. Thinking about complex systems; 6. Feedback as a source of complexity; Part III. Structure: 7. Hierarchy as a structural feature: the hierarchy of constitution; 8. Interfaces of mutual constraint and levels of control: Polyanyi's principle; 9. The theory of dimensions; 10. Integrated control information; 11. Disciplines at one level: disciplines and the human design process; 12. Consistency as a primary criterion: the limits of reductionism and synoptism; 13. Operational procedures in forming sysreps for compex systems; 14. Examples of multidisciplinary anaylsis; 15. The evolution of disciplines, 1500-1900; 16. Relations among the disciplines in the twentieth century: similarities and differences; Part IV. Fallacies of Projection: 17. Fallacies of projection: illustrations; 18. Fallacies of projection: possible sources; Part V. Conclusions: 19. What have we learned? A summary of results and conclusions; 20. What have we learned? Implications and inferences; Appendix A. Implications for education; Appendix B. Two standing bets; Appendix C. Hypotheses, guidelines, dicta, and queries; Appendix D. Glossary; References; Index.