Discussion In:
Language and Dialogue: Online-First Articles
Discussion

Principles of New Science

Dialogue between science and philosophy

 | University of MünsterGermany
The current state of the art in Dialogue Analysis represents a multitude of diverse models of dialogue, communication, pragmatics, discourse, interaction, organization, management which claim to be science or philosophy. Can we indeed expose science and philosophy to arbitrary decisions on issues and methodology? As soon as our object becomes ‘dialogue in the stream of life’, science faces the issue of complexity. The challenge is to develop a new type of science which is capable of grasping the complex whole and deriving the components from it. New Science as science of complexity also demonstrates how science and philosophy can be united by description and explanation in science and evaluation and recommendation in philosophy.
Keywords: science, philosophy, complexity, New Science, dialogue, communication, discourse, verification, human nature, institutional games, practices
Article outline
  • 1.Introductory remarks
  • 2.What is science, what is philosophy?
  • 3.What is our object?
  • 4.Verification by human nature
  • 5.Principles of New Science
    • 5.1Basic premises
    • 5.2The object
    • 5.3Methodology
      • Dialogic action
      • Components of meaning
      • The means
      • The principle of specialization
      • Universal basis and individual practices
      • The role of data
    • 5.4The importance of verification
  • 6.Institutional games: Organization and management
  • 7.Science and philosophy
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (50)
References
Bisang, Walter. 2007. “Some General Thoughts about Linguistic Typology and Dialogue Linguistics.” In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand, 53–72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Cooren, François. 2015. Organizational Discourse: Communication and Constitution. Cambridge, UK/ Malden, MA: Polity.Google Scholar
. 2020. “Reconciling dialogue and propagation: A ventriloquial inquiry.” Language and Dialogue 10 (1): 9–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, Antonio. 2000. The Feeling of What Happens. Body, Emotion and the Making of Consciousness. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Feynman, Richard P. 1998. The Meaning of It All. Thoughts of a Citizen-Scientist. Reading, Mass.: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
2000. The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Gauch Jr., Hugh G. 2012. Scientific Method in Brief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S. 2021. The Moral Powers: A Study of Human Nature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundsnurscher, Franz. 1980. Konversationsanalyse versus Dialoggrammatik. In Akten des VI. Internationalen Germanisten-Kongresses, Basel 1980, Teil 21, ed. by Heinz Rupp and Hans-Gert Roloff, 89–95. Bern/Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Iacoboni, Marco. 2017. “The Sociobiology of Language: What Mirror Neurons Can Tell Us.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 264–274, New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2018. “Pragmatics and philosophy: In search of a paradigm.” Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (2): 131–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koike, Dale A. 2017. “Theory and Practice.” In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 251–263. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2007. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lumsden, Charles J. and Edward O. Wilson. 2005. Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. New Jersey: World Scientific. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Trevor H. J. 2010. “Making knowledge: Explorations of the indissoluble relation between minds, bodies, and environment.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.) 16 (s1): S1–S21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nurse, Paul. 2020. What Is Life? Understand Biology in Five Steps. Oxford: David Fickling Books.Google Scholar
Okasha, Samir. 2016. Philosophy of Science. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. La nouvelle rhetorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilya. 1997. The End of Certainty. Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1948. Human Knowledge. Its Scope and Limits. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1978. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 7–55. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale, ed. by Charles Balley and Albert Sechehaye. Lausanne/Paris: Payot. Transl. Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenchaft. Berlin: de Gruyter 1967, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2018. “Philosophical Pragmatics.” In Methods in Pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 10), ed. by Andreas Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider, and Wolfram Bublitz, 133–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1962. “The architecture of complexity: Hierarchic systems.” Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society 1061: 467–482.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse. The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sokal, Alan and Jean Bricmont. 1998. Fashionable Nonsense. Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science. New York: Picador.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael and Henrike Moll. 2010. “The gap is social: Human shared intentionality and culture.” In Mind the Gap. Tracing the Origins of Human Universals, ed. by Peter M. Kappeler and Joan B. Silk, 331–349. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.). 1994. Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London/New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Valera, Gabriella. 2021. Diritto di dialogo. Forum Mondiale dei Giovani. Trieste.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 1991. “The dialogical principle revisited: Speech acts and mental states.” In Dialoganalyse III. Referate der 3. Arbeitstagung, Bologna 1990, ed. by Sorin Stati, Edda Weigand, and Franz Hundsnurscher, vol. 11, 75–104. Tübingen: Niemeyer. – Reprinted in Edda Weigand (ed. by Sebastian Feller). 2009. Language as Dialogue, 21–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. – Reprinted in Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey, 209–232. Cham: Springer 2016. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Constitutive features of human dialogic interaction: Mirror neurons and what they us about human abilities.” In Mirror Neurons and the Evolution of Brain and Language, ed. by Maxim Stamenov and Vittorio Gallese, 229–248. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Teaching a foreign language: A tentative enterprise.” Studies in Communication Sciences 6 (1). 93–116. – also in Language Teaching. Integrational Linguistic Approaches, ed. by Michael Toolan, 120–140. New York/London: Routledge 2009.Google Scholar
. 2007. “The sociobiology of language.” In Dialogue and Culture, ed. by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand, 27–49. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Rhetoric in the Mixed Game.” In Dialogue and Rhetoric, ed. by Edda Weigand, 3–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Language as Dialogue. From Rules to Principles of Probability, ed. by Sebastian Feller. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Dialogue in the stream of life.” Language and Dialogue 5 (2): 197–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021a. “Language and dialogue in science and philosophy.” Intercultural Pragmatics 18 (4): 533–561. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. “Dialogue: The complex whole.” Language and Dialogue 11 (3): 457–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2022. “Thinking about the future of the humanities.” In Beyond Babel: Learned Societies and the Global Renewal of the Humanities, ed. by Tom Clark. Amsteram/Philadelpia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda and Istvan Kecskes (eds). 2018. From Pragmatics to Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. 1999. Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
2003. The Future of Life. London: Abacus.Google Scholar
2004. On Human Nature. With a New Preface. Cambridge, Mass., London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1981[1967]. Zettel. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zimring, James C. 2019. What Science Is and How It Really Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar