Beyond Disciplinary Confinement And Imaginative Transdisciplinarity

1. According to the author, our explanations of social problems, for the most part, are based on all the following except:

The use of technology once hindered societies ability to adjust to new situations; however, technology has now advanced to a point where society can use it to adapt to any situation at hand. As technologies continue to increase society will be able to adapt to more problems with greater knowledge ready at hand.

After a careful study and a deeper research on an introduction to sociology, I have come to understand that no problem can be solved well enough if one does not have the sociological perspective which is defined as a way of looking at the world through a sociological lens. In fact, there is the need of the lens that will help one to view situations and have the eye to emerge through different views to solve that problem. This mirror has become a doorway that will help one to have a beginner’s mind to approach problems.

Many people in this world think that they know a lot about this world because of their wealth and power. One can learn and read about other people’s experiences but can never actually grasp on to their emotions and purpose. People tend to follow our parent’s and peer’s path since their influence is so big on them. But very few courageous people like Chris McCandless, a transcendentalist, criticizes this general norm and steps out of it. In fact, many of us are scared to step out of the determined path because of the pressure society puts on us to be successful as a human being. If someone was to step out of their path, most of the people will look down and criticize their perspective of the world. Humans are stuck in this fast paced world that they forget to think freely and do what they actually want to do. They are stuck with authority that always require you to portray the world in their way. This is the reason why people like Chris McCandless, a transcendentalist, condemns society and departs it. Transcendentalism is a philosophy where it promotes intuitive reasoning rather than scientific reasoning of the world. Since we are so conformed in this fast paced world, many people should wish to live by this philosophy because it disregards money and promotes self reliance.

A third assertion says organizations are more adaptive when diversity of input is present. This is an easy statement to understand. If people with different backgrounds give input, there will be a wider range of thoughts and ideas. If an organization takes these diverse perspectives into account, they will be better able to adapt to changing thoughts and societal norms. The final assertion given is related to Wheatley’s notion of new and old science. Wheatley suggests that old science is a mechanistic view that is no longer relatable and that her idea of new science is one that needs to be followed (Wheatley, 2006, pg. 15). On the other hand, Wielkiewicz and Stelzner say that instead of just rejecting old science, there should be a tension between the two approaches. One needs to find a resolution between the traditional “industrial approach” and the lesser known neglected “ecological approach”.

During our research, we encountered a lot of facts that actually are the issues and probably holding a solution too, but needs a lot of efforts

In order for any problem to be solve first a person or persons have to know the root of the cause. According to

Many problems currently trouble humanity, and everybody will argue that the problems they are currently facing

[4] This approach is quite unique as a social problem refers to the activities of

This paper will explain the three known theoretical sociological perspectives in science today; it will explain in detail what they are about and what they stand for.

Both activities have shown me that the definition of a complex problem is in itself complex (Funke, 1991) and is subject to many interpretations by different researchers (Gray, 2002 and Wenke et al, 2005). It has also shown me that presenting a problem in a different manner can affect how the solutions are thought about (Gambrill, 2006).

The world of science, as we know it today, is a difficult subject to grasp. So many new ideas are present and these new ideas are not interchangeable. Some parts do work together although as a whole they don’t fully coincide with each other. The three basic ideas that science is now based upon come from Newton, Einstein, and Hawking. I call these ideas/theories “new” based on what I classify the state of the scientific community of today. After looking at what is going on in science, it is clear to me that the scientific world is in a crisis state. According to Kuhn, a crisis state is when science is in the middle of choosing a particular paradigm to work under. For scientists, there is a general theme

Throughout the course of history, scientific discoveries have led to the birth of new knowledge. Humanity’s increase in knowledge has helped to achieve new heights of understanding in a variety of fields such as medicine, nuclear power, and nuclear weapons. While some of these achievements in science can generate much prosperity, some technology has created significant amounts of controversy. The Honors 2400 class entitled The Chernobyl Incident has granted me over the course of the semester the opportunity to analyze these scenarios and understand the challenging questions that are associated with the pursuit of knowledge. From many examples discussed in class, I understand the importance of limiting knowledge, the discoveries that humanity should or should not pursue, how individuals pursue confined questions, and who is ultimately responsible for approving or disapproving of these scientific questions.

We live in a strange and puzzling world. Despite the exponential growth of knowledge in the past century, we are faced by a baffling multitude of conflicting ideas. The mass of conflicting ideas causes the replacement of knowledge, as one that was previously believed to be true gets replace by new idea. This is accelerated by the rapid development of technology to allow new investigations into knowledge within the areas of human and natural sciences. Knowledge in the human sciences has been replaced for decades as new discoveries by the increased study of humans, and travel has caused the discarding of a vast array of theories. The development of

Why do young bright minds of India want to take up science or research as a promising career path in the first place? Doesn’t it feel like a risk? What career opportunities does one have after getting a PhD? These questions are bugging me quite a lot these days. For most of us, born and brought up in middle class urban society are taught right from the start to work hard and be well educated enough to secure a good job. Seemingly it is the gateway to lead a comfortable life. I think in India it is the most important thing in life. Getting a decent job. It’s the only thing that matters. No matter how creative you are and harbor any kind of alternate ambitions otherwise it becomes secondary after a point. So growing up, the thought of pursuing science and research could only be such a far-fetched dream for many of us I guess.