Claudia Vanney

Through a qualitative approach, this study identified a specific subgroup of intellectual virtues necessary for developing interdisciplinary research. Cognitive science was initially conceived as a new discipline emerging from various fields, including philosophy, psychology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, and anthropology. Thus, a frequent debate among cognitive scientists is whether the initial multidisciplinary program successfully developed into a mature interdisciplinary field or evolved into a set of independent sciences of cognition. For several years, interdisciplinarity has been an aspiration for the academy, although the difficulties limiting the success of interdisciplinary collaborations have begun to erode that initial optimism. Our analysis suggests that the problems hindering the success of interdisciplinarity can be overcome by fostering certain intellectual character strengths in scholars. The Consensual Qualitative Research method was used to analyze nine semi-structured interviews involving researchers with a long personal trajectory of interdisciplinary research between the sciences and the humanities. Three virtue domains emerged from the interviews’ analysis: (i) intellectual virtues, (ii) social virtues, and (iii) interpersonal intellectual virtues. The virtues of the third domain intersect with intellectual and social ones. They are intellectual because they pursue epistemic goods. But, unlike other intellectual virtues, they only develop in interpersonal settings, so they can also be considered to have a social component. Interpersonal intellectual virtues can be thus defined as intellectual character traits that facilitate the acquisition of knowledge (intellectual motivation) with and through other people in a reciprocal way (social environment). These virtues are essential for developing any successful collective epistemic enterprise, interdisciplinary research being a privileged context where these qualities manifest themselves in a relevant way.

Due to the hyperspecialization so prevalent nowadays, interdisciplinary research is a demanding kind of epistemic activity. The concept of intellectual virtue as presented by responsibilist approaches of virtue epistemology could offer an effective counterweight to this challenge but raises the question of what epistemic virtues are necessary for interdisciplinarity. Based on a qualitative study, we identify and heuristically conceptualize a relevant subset of epistemic virtues required by interdisciplinarity that we call _interpersonal intellectual virtues. _These virtues are personal character traits that facilitate the reciprocal acquisition and distribution of knowledge _with_ and _through_ other people. By their very nature, they are only exercised in an interpersonal relationship that seeks an epistemic good, so in some sense, they are at the intersection of social virtues and intellectual virtues. We use Jason Baehr’s four-dimensional proposal for the essential components of intellectual virtues (motivational, affective, skill, and judgment) to show that these interpersonal traits are indeed epistemic virtues. Some examples of interpersonal intellectual virtues are intellectual empathy, intellectual respect, and intellectual trust, among others. Intellectual empathy is a paradigmatic case that we analyze in more detail. Finally, we suggest that interpersonal intellectual virtues are the key character traits of people involved in any successful collective epistemic endeavor, interdisciplinary research being a privileged context in which we can clearly see their manifestation.

The study and understanding of fundamental questions cannot be addressed by a single discipline. A plurality of insights needs to be integrated or coordinated to allow for mutual enrichment in interdisciplinary research. The intellectual character describes the set of dispositions that both configure and motivate intellectual behavior. In this paper, we explore the intellectual virtues that constitute the ideal character of an interdisciplinary researcher. We look at dimensions of several intellectual virtues – intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, intellectual humility, and intellectual honest – relevant to interdisciplinarity, we discuss the significance of other character traits – intellectual creativity and intellectual trust – for integrating a plurality of insights, and we argue for the need of a social cognition approach, emphasizing the relevance of interpersonal intellectual virtues in interdisciplinary inquiry. All these virtues are key constituents of the intellectual character of interdisciplinary researchers.

En el último siglo la cuestión del determinismo/indeterminismo de la naturaleza se ha presentado de manera renovada tanto en la física (mecánica cuántica, teoría del caos), como en la biología (teoría de la evolución, biología del desarrollo, teoría de la complejidad) y en las neurociencias (problema de la libertad). Es necesario hacer una correcta diferenciación de los niveles epistemológicos, ontológicos y metodológicos en juego a fi n de evaluar tanto el alcance como los límites de las nuevas teorías y afrontar así adecuadamente el recurrente problema del reduccionismo.

In this paper, we argue that to reverse the excess of specialization and to create room for interdisciplinary cross-fertilization, it seems necessary to move the existing epistemic plurality towards a collaborative process of social cognition. In order to achieve this, we propose to extend the psychological notion of joint attention towards what we call joint intellectual attention. This special kind of joint attention involves a shared awareness of sharing the cognitive process of knowledge. We claim that if an interdisciplinary research team aspires to work collaboratively, it is essential for the researchers to jointly focus their attention towards a common object and establish a second-person relatedness among them. We consider some of the intellectual dispositions or virtues fostered by joint intellectual attention that facilitate interdisciplinary exchange, and explore some of the practical consequences of this cognitive approach to interdisciplinarity for education and research.

The discussion of determinism/indeterminism in the natural world is not only a concern for epistemology and philosophy of science; it also has strong implications for natural theology. On the one hand, the distinction between determinism and predictability has led to deeper research into the relationship between ontological and gnoseological realms. On the other hand, the multiple descriptions proposed by contemporary science cannot avoid the question of the cognitive status of the various scientific formulations and the possibility of a coexistence of deterministic and indeterministic views. This chapter presents the methodological proposal of the abandonment of the mental limit which entails a deep renunciation of any form of monism and of the kind of uniqueness that results from resting at an objectification. Methodic-thematic pluralism not only relates the gnoseological to the ontological realms without confusing them, but also paves the way for establishing the cognitive status of the different scientific disciplines avoiding reduction.

Las relaciones entre ciencia y religión son tema de amplio debate dentro de la filosofía, la teología y la historia. Desde una postura de conflicto hasta la complejidad histórica, pasando por una gran variedad de posibles tipos de relaciones, las opiniones acerca de las mismas intentan describirlas y sugerir cuál es la mejor forma en la que ciencia y religión deben relacionarse. La ciencia, en cuanto conocimiento de la naturaleza con vocación de universalidad, propone teorías que, tanto en la historia como en la actualidad, se han relacionado con el discurso teológico. Así, esta voz describirá algunas posibles relaciones entre los postulados, investigaciones, teorías y actividad científicos y los discursos religiosos y teológicos, sobre todo cristiano, pero también puntualizando relaciones en otras tradiciones religiosas. Analizando diversas perspectivas de las posibles relaciones entre ciencia y religión, se considerarán el campo académico interdisciplinar de ciencia y religión, las diversas propuestas de tipologías de relación y la crítica histórica a tales tipologías. Además, se tratarán diversas discusiones actuales concernientes a la cosmología y la microfísica, la biología, la antropología y las ciencias cognitivas, y la teología de la acción divina. Finalmente se analizará la interdisciplinariedad necesaria para este tipo de campo académico.

Quantum mechanics studies physical phenomena on a microscopic scale. These phenomena are far beyond the reach of our observation, and the connection between QM's mathematical formalism and the experimental results is very indirect. Furthermore, quantum indeterminism defies common sense. Microphysical experiments have shown that, according to the empirical context, electrons and quanta of light behave as waves and other times as particles, even though it is impossible to design an experiment that manifests both behaviors at the same time. Unlike Newtonian physics, the properties of quantum systems are not all well-defined simultaneously. Moreover, quantum systems are not characterized by their properties, but by a wave function. Although one of the principles of the theory is the uncertainty principle, the trajectory of the wave function is controlled by the deterministic Schrödinger equations. But what is the wave function? Like other theories of the physical sciences, quantum theory assigns states to systems. The wave function is a particular mathematical representation of the quantum state of a physical system, which contains information about the possible states of the system and the respective probabilities of each state

En este artículo muestro la compatibilidad de las explicaciones de la causalidad de Polo con los paradigmas actuales de la biología teórica. Indica cómo el análisis de la actividad vital conduce a una distinction entre las funciones de la vida vegetativa, las facultades orgánicas de la vida sensitiva y los hábitos de la persona humana. A diferencia de los otros seres vivos, la perfección del hombre se encuentra en los hábitos, que son un crecimiento de su naturaleza posibilitado por la libertad, mediante el cual la naturaleza se convierte en potencial respecto a su destinación espiritual.

In this work I will analyze the plurality of times in Polo’s philosophy. Every type of temporality is associated with a peculiar movement. Diverse levels of discussion will be reocgnized in the debate on determinism, corresponding to the binomials: a) contingency – need, b) efficient random – causality, c) emergency – genetical determinism, d) uncertainty – capacity of prediction, e) free choice – automation, f) transcendental liberty – inexorable destiny. Though the debate on determinism can be established in a rigorous way in any of the six levels, we propose the methodical exigency of avoiding the confusion of these, as an enlightening way to advance in the study of this problematic

Las explicaciones causalistas de Polo son compatibles con los actuales paradigmas de la biología teórica. Los procesos epigenéticos (entendidos como actualizaciones de la potencia vital de los organismos vivos) y los procesos evolutivos pueden ser explicados si se entiende a las praxis vitales como concausalidades morfotélicas, porque la causa formal en concausalidad con el fin es susceptible de ampliación formal. Así, la causa final es responsable de promover indefinidamente la morfogénesis de causas formales intracósmicas. En la unidad de orden del universo ocurre una multitud de especies vivas, cuya diferencia es jerárquica. Todos los vivientes están finalizados por su especie, con excepción del ser humano. El hombre es un ser singular: la perfección del hombre es inherente a cada hombre.