Search

Dieses Buch ist eine Open Access Publikation. Der lange gehegte Traum von künstlicher Intelligenz (KI) wird in unserer Alltagswelt zunehmend Realität. Damit verbinden sich hohe gesellschaftliche Erwartungen, aber auch Sorgen hinsichtlich einer schleichenden Entmündigung des Menschen. Am Beispiel des Forschungssektors lotet dieser Band die Optionen, Entwicklungschancen und Risiken von KI-Techniken für die Zukunft des wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisprozesses und der darauf beruhenden technischen Entwicklungen aus. Zu diesem Zweck wird zunächst der Stand der KI-Technik und ihrer Anwendungen dargestellt. Es folgen wissenschaftsphilosophische Untersuchungen zur Frage der Ersetzbarkeit des forschenden Menschen durch KI und zu erwartenden Veränderungen in der wissenschaftlichen Forschung. Weitere Abschnitte widmen sich den Folgen für die Arbeitswelt von Forschern/Forscherinnen sowie den durch KI erzeugten neuen Herausforderungen für die rechtliche Regulierung im Spannungsfeld von Wissenschaftsfreiheit und Datenschutz. Der Band schließt mit Empfehlungen für die verantwortlichen Akteure in Wissenschaft, Forschungspolitik und Gesellschaft aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive.

What exactly do—and should—the terms “interdisciplinarity” and its cognate “transdisciplinarity” mean? This chapter exposes different understandings of inter- and transdisciplinarity and sets out a foundation for a critique of innumerable usages of these hype terms. It starts by presenting a plurality of motives behind these notions, followed by criteria characterizing the semantic core of the notions, namely (i) the existence of (disciplinary or academic) boundaries and (ii) the transgression or overcoming of those boundaries. Based on the dialectic consideration of boundaries and with reference to well-established distinctions in the philosophy of science, a plurality of four types is shown: interdisciplinarity with regard to (a) objects, (b) knowledge/theories concepts, (c) methods/practices, and further, (d) problems/issues. Different philosophical thought traditions can be related to the four types. All four types can be illustrated by research programs that are labeled “interdisciplinary”: nanoresearch, complex systems theory/chaos theory, biomimicry/bionics, and technology assessment/sustainability research. In this chapter special emphasis is given to the complex relation between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. Arguments favoring a critical-reflexive concept of problem-oriented interdisciplinarity going beyond what is typically associated with transdisciplinarity are presented. This terminological clarification constitutes the very basis for the Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity set forth in this book.

Interdisciplinarity—including its cognate transdisciplinarity—is a hallmark of contemporary knowledge production. The term is omnipresent in science, technology, and economy as well as in society and higher education—fueling the rhetoric of present-day knowledge politics. But what does interdisciplinarity stand for? What is, what was, and what should interdisciplinarity be, particularly for the future of our knowledge production? – These fundamental and related questions and their relevance to science policy and research practice are the subject of this introductory chapter. Starting from the diagnosis that interdisciplinarity has lost its critical momentum and its original spirit, the need for a Philosophy of Interdisciplinarity is sketched. In light of the ambivalence of the technosciences and the challenge of sustainable development, this engaged philosophy provides a novel perspective on interdisciplinarity in science policy and research practice. The opening chapter outlines the difference between a strategic-instrumentalist and a critical-reflexive view of interdisciplinarity, giving greater weight to the latter considering the future of our knowledge production. It sets out the line of argumentation pursued throughout the book, which seeks to inject a more critical viewpoint into the vibrant discourse on the concept and practice of interdisciplinarity for sustainable development.

This interlude chapter—between the analysis and assessment of the status-quo (chapters 2–5; first part of the book) and the visions and prospects for the future of interdisciplinary knowledge production (the following chapters 6–8; second part of the book)—addresses shortcomings of the instrumentalist view of interdisciplinarity and its isolated focus on recipes and organization procedures. This chapter questions the positivist fact/value dichotomy; it refers to critical materialist and transcendental pragmatist thinking; it considers viewpoints of environmentalism and reflects on insights from phenomenology and from Martin Heidegger; and it discusses recent developments resulting from a participatory approach among the sciences which could contribute to a new view of human-nature relations (self-organization theory, complex systems theory). Essentially, the interlude chapter paves the way for a critical-reflexive concept of problem-oriented interdisciplinarity. Based on the analysis here, the final three chapters provide a theoretical framework (chapter 6) and present case studies (chapter 7 & 8) showing that a more critical-reflexive perspective in (and with) interdisciplinarity is feasible and can be incorporated in the practice of interdisciplinarity for a sustainable future of our knowledge society.