DEMARCATION OF SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES: SEPARATION OR INTEGRATION?

Abstract

This response article to A.Yu. Antonovski’s work, “Types of Nature and Communicative Dimensions of Disciplinary Differentiation”, challenges the foundational assumption of their article that it is possible to analyze science as a “whole” entity, which can then be divided into separate disciplines based on communicative criteria. The response argues that science cannot be neatly “cut into parts” and instead proposes an alternative concept that prioritizes the autonomy of individual disciplines before attempting to delineate boundaries between science and non-science. While the communicative methodology introduced in the original article is acknowledged as useful for analyzing individual disciplines, it is deemed less effective for defining boundaries between them. The response outlines several key approaches: understanding the object of research through the fundamental principles of a discipline and hypothesizing about the specific role of the subject matter in shaping the scope of the discipline. It is argued that the boundaries of a discipline are primarily determined by the underlying attitudes, theories, and methodologies that define its research object and establish criteria for truth within that field. These elements are accessible primarily to researchers within the discipline itself. In this context, the response emphasizes the importance of granting scientists themselves a central role in defining the boundaries of their discipline. By exercising their right to self-determination, researchers can actively shape and delineate the contours of their field.