Talk:Transdisciplinarity

message: This article (to the extent that it makes any sense at all) advocates a narrow perspective that derives, I think, from a fringe scientific movement, and makes a classic non-NPOV claim: "Transdisciplinarity is nevertheless radically distinct from multidisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity because of its goal, the understanding of the present world, which cannot be accomplished in the framework of disciplinary research."  This can be fixed quite simply: say "According to so-and-so,..."  Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: like saying 'according to the dictionary definition found in most encyclopedias'?  because that is pretty much the definition that i've seen in various encyclopedias. --Buridan 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reallly? I don't think the phrase "the present world" would get past a competent editor. I think what is meant is this: "... because of its goal, the understanding of pressing challenges to humanity that the disciplines have thus far failed to solve..."  (I'm ready to sign off on that!) Bryan 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps not the 'present world part'  that is true.  but for the most part, the rest is fine, actually i think the present world bit is likely from the french school of transdisciplinarity. --Buridan 01:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of NPOV tag

message: Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place to publish original research. However, this material could be summarized as a subsection of the above section ("Transdisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Multidisciplinarity"), but it is going to need a LOT of work.
First of all, who are these people? Where are they from? What do they do? Are they crackpots? Are they respected scientists?
:The framework for those anthropological sciences and disciplines that deal with the functions of the nervous system has a simple basic structure: 
What do you mean, "framework for" ? Do you mean that this OUGHT to be the framework, but isn't? Do you mean that this is generally accepted (which it isn't)?
:It becomes clear 
What is "it"? The framework, the structure, or an object from outer space?
:It becomes clear when, based on the matrix with the four central questions of biological research (causation, ontogeny, adaptation, phylogeny [compare Aristotle: Causality / Four Major Causes]), one asks and at the same time takes the levels of complexity (e.g. cell, organ, individual, group) at which the questions are aimed into account. According to Gerhard Medicus an orientation matrix can be prepared based on he central questions (Table / Columns) and reference levels (Table / Lines):
With apologies, this simply isn't comprehensible. I think what you mean is that the nature of transdisciplinarity becomes clear when the four central questions of biological research are graphed against four distinct levels of analysis.
HOWEVER, you do NOT explain just HOW this makes everything clear. Could you please give an example of what goes into those little boxes in the matrix? And, please forgive me if I am dense, but how do I see the nature of transdisciplinarity here? Let's take, for example, a chicken. Let's suppose that Dave is interested in the ontogeny of the chicken, while Alice, bless her, is interested in the cause of the chicken. Where is the transdisciplinarity? In the chicken?
:In this “scheme of transdisciplinarity”, all anthropological disciplines, their questions and results can be intertwined and allocated with each other. It is the starting point for a systematical order for all human sciences, and also a source for a consistent networking and structuring of their results. This “bio-psycho-social” orientation framework is the basis for the development of the "Theory of Human Sciences" and for a transdisciplinary consensus. (In this tabulated orientation matrix the questions and reference levels in italics are also the subject of the humanities.)
Well, they're not in italics. And, for all of the above, you mean "These guys say that..."  And just out of curiosity, has anyone responded by suggesting that their scheme is reductionistic and totalizing?Bryan 13:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of No Original Research Tag

message: Instead of editing this article, it might be wise to read "Unity of knowledge and transdisciplinarity: Context of definition, theory and the new discourse of problem solving" (2002, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems) by Julie Thompson Klein. The article gives a historical overview of the major definitions of transdisciplinarity. An extended summary of this article could easily (and understandably) replace present article here on Wikipedia. Most definitions and important persons (like presented in Wiki-article) will be explained.Melissa88 14:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read article Julie Klein 

message: Could we please merge transdisciplinary with interdisciplinary ?  Thank you.  Settdigger (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter Vs. Trans 

message: According to one of the engines ("BADWARE.INFO") used in VirusTotal scans, the first site linked in the "External links" section (titled "Integral Research Center") is a malicious destination. AndrewOne (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link in "External links" found to be malicious 

message: I'm just getting my head into the maintenance template and the discussions here, I was considering removing the maintenance template, but I believe it should remain.
I am summarising the status of the article and talk pages as of 19/05/21, I may be able to edit later, but hope this might also be useful for others.
# This article possibly contains original research. (August 2007) - I think the issue here is that some sections appear to be very close to the original source text.
# This article has an unclear citation style. (April 2013) - I think the two issues here are (1) inline citations are...of a brief format, and (2) there's a 'sources' list of sources not clearly cited in the body of the article.
Of the other sections on this Talk as of today:
# Explanation of NPOV tag - resolved, no action needed
# This article contains substantial plagiarism - related to issue 1 above, although I think these are paraphrased
# Explanation of CleanupConfusing tag  - no idea
# DEFINITIONS - elements of this are useful but the discussion indicates this is verbatim from source, so needs adapting (and ideally reference to a secondary source)
# Explanation of No Original Research Tag - I assume this is notes on draft text? They are not signed, and so it is hard to understand the structure. Assume no action needed.
# Read article Julie Klein - A suggested reading to modify the page (great, feel free to make such edits)
# Inter Vs. Trans - A request to merge (which I think can be ignored)
Sjgknight (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2021 summary of article issues