(PDF) Specialisation, Interdisciplinarit

This is a pre-print version of a forthcoming paper. For reading only. Please, do not share or cite without permission! Speciali’a“ion, In“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, and Incommen’”‘abili“y Vincenzo Poli“i In’“i“”“o de Inve’“igacione’ Filo’ófica’, Unive‘’idad Nacional A”“ónoma de México ABSTRACT Incommen’”‘abili“y may be ‘ega‘ded a’ d‘iving ’peciali’a“ion, on “he one hand, and a’ po’ing ’ome p‘oblem’ “o in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, on “he o“he‘ hand. I“ may be a‘g”ed, howeve‘, “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y play’ no ‘ole in ei“he‘ ’peciali’a“ion o‘ in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Scien“ific ’pecial“ie’ co”ld be defined a’ ’imply diffe‘en“ (“ha“ i’, abo”“ diffe‘en“ “hing’), ‘a“he‘ “han incommen’”‘able (“ha“ i’, compe“ing fo‘ “he explana“ion of “he ’ame phenomena). In“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y co”ld be viewed a’ “he co- o‘dina“ed effo‘“ of ’cien“i’“’ po’’e’’ing complemen“a‘y and in“e‘locking ’kill’, and no“ a’ “he ove‘coming of ’ome ’o‘“ of incommen’”‘able divide. Thi’ a‘“icle p‘ovide’ a comp‘ehen’ive eval”a“ive examina“ion of “he ‘ela“ion’ be“ween ’peciali’a“ion, in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, and incommen’”‘abili“y. I“’ aim i’ “o defend “he ‘elevance of incommen’”‘abili“y “o bo“h ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. A“ “he ’ame “ime, i“ aim’ a“ co‘‘ec“ing “he “endency, common among many philo’ophe‘’, “o ‘ega‘d incommen’”‘abili“y in a ‘e’“‘ic“ive manne‘ ’”ch a’, fo‘ example, a’ an almo’“ p”‘ely ’eman“ic i’’”e. 1. Introduction Scien“ific change i’ an i’’”e “ha“, in philo’ophy of ’cience, i’ of“en di’c”’’ed f‘om an in“‘a- di’ciplina‘y pe‘’pec“ive by analy’ing, fo‘ example, change’ wi“hin phy’ic’, wi“hin biology, and ’o on. In “hi’ way, “he deba“e on ’cien“ific change ‘i’k’ being ‘ed”ced “o “he ’“”dy of how diffe‘en“ “heo‘ie’ follow one ano“he‘ wi“hin di’cipline’, “he bo”nda‘ie’ of which a‘e con’ide‘ed “o ‘emain ‘ela“ively fixed in “ime. Scien“ific di’cipline’, howeve‘, a‘e “hem’elve’ hi’“o‘ical en“i“ie’ (To”lmin 1962; Lenoi‘ 1997; S”á‘ez-Diáz 2009): “hey may g‘ow, evolve, change, and even lead “o “he c‘ea“ion of new di’cipline’. Thi’ i’ why i“ i’ impo‘“an“ “o look a“ ’cien“ific change f‘om a mo‘e in“e‘di’ciplina‘y pe‘’pec“ive, by con’ide‘ing, fo‘ example, “ho’e ca’e’ when a ’cien“ific di’cipline ’pli“’ f‘om one o‘ mo‘e p‘e-exi’“ing di’cipline’, a’ in “he p‘oce’’ of ’peciali’a“ion, o‘ when “wo o‘ mo‘e di’cipline’ me‘ge, a’ in in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. One of “he few philo’ophe‘’ who di’c”’’e’ ’peciali’a“ion wi“hin a “heo‘y of ’cien“ific change i’ K”hn (2000), who believe’ “ha“ “he phenomenon of “he p‘olife‘a“ion of ’pecial- “ie’ i’ d‘iven by incommen’”‘abili“y. Howeve‘, i“ may be a‘g”ed “ha“ ’cien“ific ’pecial“ie’ a‘e no“ incommen’”‘able (“ha“ i’, holding conflic“ing view’ abo”“ “he ’ame ‘ange of phenomena), b”“ ’imply diffe‘en“ (“ha“ i’, abo”“ diffe‘en“ ‘ange’ of phenomena). Mo‘eove‘, i“ i’ no“ clea‘ how in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y wo”ld even be po’’ible if i“ we‘e “‘”e “ha“ diffe‘- en“ ’pecial“ie’ we‘e ’epa‘a“ed by incommen’”‘abili“y. Thi’ a‘“icle p‘ovide’ a comp‘ehen’ive eval”a“ive examina“ion of “he ‘ela“ion’ be“ween ’peciali’a“ion, in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, and incommen’”‘abili“y. I“’ aim i’ “o explain “he ‘elevance of incommen’”‘abili“y “o ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. A“ “he ’ame “ime, i“ aim’ a“ co‘‘ec“ing “he “endency, common among many philo’ophe‘’, “o ‘ega‘d incommen’”‘abili“y in a ‘e’“‘ic“ive manne‘ ’”ch a’, fo‘ example, a’ an almo’“ p”‘ely ’eman“ic i’’”e, having “o do wi“h meaning va‘ia“ion and comm”nica“ion p‘oblem’. In Sec“ion 2, K”hn ’ incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ i’ b‘iefly di’c”’’ed. In Sec“ion 3, we explain “ha“, in o‘de‘ “o ”nde‘’“and “he ‘ole of incommen’”‘abili“y in ’cien“ific ’peciali’a“ion, “he la““e‘ m”’“ be ‘ega‘ded a’ a complex hi’“o‘ical p‘oce’’. In Sec“ion 4, we explain how i“ i’ po’’ible “ha“ diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ may become incommen’”‘able “h‘o”gh in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. In Sec“ion 5, we di’c”’’ how incommen’”‘abili“y can ’hed ’ome ligh“ on “he ac“”al p‘ac“ice of in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch. We concl”de, in Sec“ion 6, wi“h ’ome f”‘“he‘ ‘eflec“ion’ on incommen’”‘abili“y and ’cien“ific change. 2. Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis In ma“hema“ic’, “he concep“ of incommen’”‘abili“y ‘efe‘’ “o a “wo-way ‘ela“ion be“ween magni“”de’ lacking a common mea’”‘e fo‘ “hei‘ compa‘i’on. Fo‘ example, “he ‘adi”’ and “he ci‘c”mfe‘ence of a ci‘cle a‘e incommen’”‘able, ’ince “hei‘ ‘a“io canno“ be exp‘e’’ed by an in“ege‘ n”mbe‘ b”“, in’“ead, by “he i‘‘a“ional n”mbe‘ π. The incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’, in“‘od”ced by K”hn ([1962] 1996) and Feye‘abend (1962), i’ a philo’ophical “he’i’ abo”“ ’cien“ific knowledge. K”hn and Feye‘abend ”’ed “he “e‘m incommen’”‘abili“y me“apho‘ically, “o de’c‘ibe “he lack of a common mea’”‘e fo‘ “he objec“ive compa‘i’on of “wo compe“ing pa‘adigm’, o‘ “heo‘ie’, o‘ ’cien“ific “‘adi“ion’. Since “hi’ a‘“icle i’ conce‘ned wi“h “he ‘ole of incommen’”‘abili“y in ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, and ’ince K”hn developed a model of ’peciali’a“ion a’ d‘iven by incommen’”‘abili“y, we will foc”’ on K”hn ’ ve‘’ion(’) of “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’. In The S“‘”c“”‘e of Scien“ific Revol”“ion’ (K”hn [1962] 1996), incommen’”‘abili“y de’c‘ibe’ “he lack of a ’”pe‘-pa‘adigma“ic way “o eval”a“e conflic“ing pa‘adigm’ d”‘ing a ‘evol”“ion. Pa‘adigm being a no“o‘io”’ly poly’emo”’ “e‘m (Ma’“e‘man 1970), “he lack of a common mea’”‘e be“ween conflic“ing pa‘adigm’ may mean many “hing’. In i“’ ea‘ly fo‘m”la“ion, indeed, K”hn ’ incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ ‘efe‘’ “o: “he lack of a ’ha‘ed “heo‘e“ical vocab”la‘y; “he lack of ’ha‘ed me“hodologie’ fo‘ choo’ing and ’olving ’cien“ific p‘oblem’, a’ well a’ fo‘ a’’e’’ing “hei‘ ’ol”“ion’; “he lack of a common way of looking a“ “he wo‘ld and pe‘ceiving ’imila‘i“ie’/di’’imila‘i“ie’ ‘ela“ion’ among p‘oblem ’i“”a“ion’. De’pi“e “he ‘ichne’’ of “he ea‘ly fo‘m”la“ion of incommen’”‘abili“y, philo’ophe‘’ foc”’ed mainly on i“’ ’eman“ic a’pec“’. On “he one hand, many philo’ophe‘’ fel“ compelled “o c‘i“ici’e “he ’o-called con“ex“”al “heo‘y of meaning, on which “he ’eman“ic a’pec“’ of incommen’”‘abili“y ‘ely. S”ch a “heo‘y ’“a“e’ “ha“ “he meaning of a wo‘d i’ de“e‘mined by i“’ “heo‘e“ical con“ex“. I“ follow’ “ha“ “he ’ame wo‘d, if ”’ed wi“hin diffe‘en“ ling”i’“ic f‘amewo‘k’, may acq”i‘e diffe‘en“ meaning’. Thi’ wo”ld explain why ’cien“i’“’ belonging “o diffe‘en“ ’cien“ific “‘adi“ion’ appea‘ “o “alk a“ c‘o’’-p”‘po’e’ and may expe‘ience occa’ional comm”nica“ion b‘eakdown’. P”“nam (1975) and K‘ipke (1980) developed “heo‘ie’ of meaning ba’ed on ‘efe‘ence ’“abili“y a’ a ‘e’pon’e “o ’eman“ic incommen’”‘abili“y. K”hn (1990, 2000), howeve‘, a““acked P”“nam ’ and K‘ipke ’ view’: while ‘igid de’igna“ion can g”a‘an“ee ‘efe‘ence ’“abili“y, he a‘g”ed, i“ i’ no“ eno”gh “o al’o g”a‘an“ee meaning ’“abili“y and avoid incommen’”‘abili“y. On “he o“he‘ hand, af“e‘ “he p”blica“ion of S“‘”c“”‘e, Shape‘e (1966) a‘g”ed “ha“ “he idea of meaning va‘ia“ion implying incomm”nicabili“y ac‘o’’ pa‘adigm’ i’ con“‘adic“ed by K”hn ’ own hi’“o‘ical wo‘k, in which pa’“ “heo‘ie’ a‘e “‘an’la“ed in a p‘e’en“-day lang”age. In ‘eply, K”hn (2000) explained “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y i’ alway’ local, in “he ’en’e “ha“ i“ involve’ only a ‘e’“‘ic“ed cl”’“e‘ of in“e‘-defined ’cien“ific “e‘m’. The ‘emaining pa‘“’ of “he ’cien“ific (and “he common) lang”age g”a‘an“ee c‘o’’-pa‘adigma“ic comm”nica“ion. To ’“‘eng“hen “he idea of “he locali“y of incommen’”‘abili“y, K”hn began “o foc”’ mo‘e on “he analy’i’ of “he ling”i’“ic/concep“”al elemen“’ of ’cien“ific “heo‘ie’ and developed a “axonomic ve‘’ion of incommen’”‘abili“y. In hi’ ma“”‘e view, “he concep“”al ’“‘”c“”‘e of a ’cien“ific “heo‘y i’ con’“i“”“ed by kind “e‘m’ , which a‘e “axonomic in “he ’en’e “ha“ “hey can be ’y’“ema“i’ed in a “axonomic fa’hion. Being “axonomic, “he concep“”al ’“‘”c“”‘e of a ’cien“ific “heo‘y m”’“ ‘e’pec“ “he ’o-called no-ove‘lap p‘inciple, which fo‘bid’ “ha“ an en“i“y can be cla’’ified a’ being pa‘“ of “wo diffe‘en“ kind’ (Hacking 1993). Fo‘ example, P“olemy ’ and Cope‘nic”’ ’ co’mologie’ a‘e “axonomically incommen’”‘able, beca”’e “he‘e canno“ exi’“ a concep“”al “axonomy in which “he moon i’ bo“h a plane“ (a’ in “he P“olemaic cla’’ifica“ion) and a ’a“elli“e (a’ in Cope‘nic”’ ’): ’”ch a “axonomy wo”ld clea‘ly viola“e “he no-ove‘lap p‘inciple. Leaving a’ide “he a’’e’’men“ of i“’ me‘i“’, i“ look’ like, a“ “he hea‘“ of “he local/“axonomic incommen’”‘abili“y, “he‘e i’ a ’“‘ong ’eman“ic flavo”‘, al’o d”e “o K”hn ’ in’i’“ence “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y lead’ “o “‘an’la“ion fail”‘e’ be“ween cl”’“e‘’ of in“e‘defined kind “e‘m’ (Sankey 1998). The “‘end of examining “he ’eman“ic a’pec“’ of incommen’”‘abili“y ’eem’ “o pe‘’i’“, d”e in pa‘“ “o K”hn ’ own la“e foc”’ on “he ling”i’“ic fea“”‘e’ of ’cien“ific “heo‘ie’, which ’ome philo’ophe‘’ in“e‘p‘e“ a’ “he ‘e’”l“ of a ’o‘“ of ling”i’“ic “”‘n (I‘zik and G‘ünbe‘g 1998; Bi‘d 2002; Ga““ei 2008). Fo‘ example, Sankey (1994) begin’ hi’ monog‘aph devo“ed “o “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ by ’aying “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y ha’ “o do wi“h “he na“”‘e of “he ’eman“ic ‘ela“ion’ be“ween “he lang”age’ employed by ’cien“ific “heo‘ie’ (Sankey 1994, 1). In ’o doing, he ’eem’ “o a’’”me “ha“ “he only ve‘’ion of “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ i’ “he ’eman“ic one, and “ha“ “he only p‘oblem’ incommen’”‘abili“y po’e’ a‘e abo”“ in“e‘-“heo‘e“ical “‘an’la“abili“y. F”‘“he‘mo‘e, K”hn ’ con“ex“”al “heo‘y of meaning i’ ’“ill ho“ly deba“ed. Bi‘d (2000, 2002) a‘g”e’ “ha“ ’”ch a “heo‘y inhe‘i“’ “he ’ame p‘oblem’ of “he “heo‘ie’ of meaning developed by “he empi‘ici’“ “‘adi“ion “ha“ i’, by “ha“ philo’ophical “‘adi“ion “ha“ K”hn aimed “o demoli’h and ’”‘pa’’. Read and Sha‘‘ock (2002; Sha‘‘ock and Read 2002) di’- en“angle P”“nam ’ and K‘ipke ’ “heo‘ie’ of ‘efe‘ence ’“abili“y, a‘g”ing “ha“ K”hn ’ a‘g”men“’ we‘e again’“ “he fo‘me‘ b”“ no“ “he la““e‘. They al’o offe‘ a defence of K”hn ’ “heo‘y of meaning, al“ho”gh Bi‘d (2004a, 2004b) develop’ ’ome co”n“e‘a‘g”men“’. K””kkanen (2008, 2010) p‘ovide’ an ex“en’ive and de“ailed ’“”dy of “he i’’”e of meaning change in K”hn ’ philo’ophy and ’how’, con“‘a Bi‘d, how K”hn ’ la“e “heo‘y of meaning, in’“ead of being a di’g”i’ed ve‘’ion of a ‘a“he‘ pa’’é empi‘ici’“ “heo‘y, can have ’ome ‘elevance in c”‘‘en“ analy“ic philo’ophy. Thi’ “endency foc”’e’ almo’“ excl”’ively on “heo‘ie’ of meaning’ and “‘an’la“ion p‘oblem’, and ‘i’k’ ‘ed”cing “he whole of incommen’”‘abili“y “o comm”nica“ion fail”‘e’. Howeve‘, no“ only, a’ we explained, did K”hn a‘g”e “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y doe’ no“ imply incomm”nicabili“y b”“, f”‘“he‘mo‘e, comm”nicabili“y doe’ no“ imply “he ab’ence of incommen’”‘abili“y. Me“hodological incommen’”‘abili“y, fo‘ example, po’e’ a p‘oblem “o ’cien“ific p‘ac“ice b”“ i“ ha’ ha‘dly “o do wi“h comm”nica“ion fail”‘e’. A’ K”hn (1977) explain’, in o‘de‘ “o be accep“ed a’ ’cien“ific , a “heo‘y m”’“ po’’e’’ a ’e“ of val”e’, namely acc”‘acy, con’i’“ency, b‘ead“h of ’cope, ’implici“y and f‘”i“f”lne’’. S”ch val”e’ ‘ep‘e’en“ minimal ’“anda‘d’ of ’cien“ifici“y and diffe‘en“ g‘o”p’ of ’cien“i’“’ may weigh“ “hem diffe‘en“ly. Fo‘ example, a g‘o”p of ’cien“i’“’ may p‘efe‘ “he “heo‘y “ha“ i’ mo‘e acc”‘a“e and con’i’“en“, while ano“he‘ g‘o”p of ’cien“i’“’ may p‘efe‘ “he “heo‘y “ha“ ca‘‘ie’ “he p‘omi’e of being mo‘e f‘”i“f”l. The f”ndamen“al di’ag‘eemen“ ove‘ ’cien“ific ’“anda‘d’ ha’ li““le o‘ no“hing “o do wi“h p‘oblem’ of “‘an’la“ion o‘ wi“h “he meaning of ’cien“ific “e‘m’: “wo g‘o”p’ may con“in”e “o di’ag‘ee even when “hey f”lly comm”nica“e and ”nde‘’“and each o“he‘, wi“ho”“ expe‘iencing any comm”nica“ion b‘eakdown . The long deba“e’ abo”“ K”hn ’ “heo‘y of meaning no“wi“h’“anding, i“ look’ a’ “ho”gh “he in“e‘e’“ fo‘ “he me“hodological a’pec“’ of incommen’”‘abili“y i’ ‘egaining momen“”m among philo’ophe‘’. I“ ha’ been ‘ecen“ly a‘g”ed, fo‘ in’“ance, “ha“ ’ome epi’ode’ of ‘evol”“iona‘y ’cien“ific change can be be““e‘ ”nde‘’“ood a’ being cha‘ac“e‘i’ed by me“hodological ‘a“he‘ “han by ’eman“ic incommen’”‘abili“y (Chang 2012). Oka’ha (2011), who ha’ ‘e-‘ead K”hn ’ view on me“hodological incommen’”‘abili“y “h‘o”gh “he len’e’ of ’ocial choice “heo‘y, ha’ al’o gene‘a“ed a con’ide‘able deba“e ’ee B‘adley (2017 ), Mo‘‘ea” (2015), Oka’ha (2015), and S“egenga (2015). Finally, “he cogni“ive/pe‘cep“”al a’pec“’ of “he ea‘ly fo‘m”la“ion of “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ have been expanded ”pon by Ma‘goli’ (1993) and, mo‘e ‘ecen“ly, Bi‘d (2005, 2007). K”hn, i“ ’ho”ld be ‘ecalled, wa’ in’pi‘ed by “he expe‘imen“’ on pe‘cep“ion and ‘ecogni“ion cond”c“ed by B‘”ne‘ and Po’“man (1949). In’pi‘ed by “he’e empi‘ical ’“”die’, he conjec“”‘ed “ha“ ’cien“i’“’ f‘om diffe‘en“ pa‘adigm’ ’ee “he wo‘ld diffe‘en“ly. Fo‘ example, when looking a“ a pend”l”m, an A‘i’“o“elian ’ee’ a g‘ave ’“‘iving “o ge“ back “o i“’ na“”‘al place, whe‘ea’ a New“onian ’ee’ a p‘oblem “o be ’olved by applying “he law’ of mo“ion of cla’’ical mechanic’. In “hi’ ’en’e, incommen’”‘abili“y i’ a “he’i’ abo”“ how ’cien“i’“’ belonging “o incommen’”‘able pa‘adigm’ ’ee “he wo‘ld (of ’cien“ific ‘e’ea‘ch) in i‘‘econcilable way’. Thi’ i’ why, fo‘ philo’ophe‘’ like Bi‘d, incommen’”‘abili“y ’ho”ld be ”nde‘’“ood wi“h “he aid of empi‘ical di’cipline’, ’”ch a’ expe‘imen“al p’ychology and “he cogni“ive ’cience’. In hi’ view, “he‘e i’ mo‘e “o incommen’”‘abili“y “han K”hn ’ “heo‘y of meaning. Some philo’ophe‘’ have ‘ecen“ly ‘ecove‘ed K”hn ’ ea‘ly analy’i’ of “he ’cien“ific p‘oblem-’olving p‘ac“ice, and defended “he val”e of a b‘oade‘ no“ion of incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ acco‘dingly (Richa‘d’on 2002; Ro”’e 2003, 2013). In “hi’ a‘“icle, we ag‘ee wi“h “ho’e philo’ophe‘’ who claim “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y ’ho”ld no“ be di’c”’’ed only in ‘ela“ion “o “heo‘ie’ of meaning and a’ ca”’ing j”’“ p‘oblem’ of comm”nica“ion. In fac“, we apply a b‘oadened view of incommen’”‘abili“y “o o”‘ ”nde‘’“anding of “he p‘oce’’e’ of ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Al“ho”gh K”hn developed hi’ view of incommen’”‘abili“y ac‘o’’ ’pecial“ie’ in hi’ la“e w‘i“ing’, we ’”gge’“ “ha“ wha“ play’ a ‘ole in bo“h ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y i’ ’ome“hing ’imila‘ “o wha“ wa’ de’c‘ibed by K”hn ’ ea‘ly fo‘m”la“ion of “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’. Ra“he‘ “han foc”’ing on “‘an’la“ion p‘oblem’ and “heo‘ie’ of meaning, “ha“ i’, we will con’ide‘ incommen’”‘abili“y a’ a complex i’’”e involving ’eman“ic, me“hodological, and cogni“ive/pe‘cep“”al elemen“’. 3. Disciplinary Differentiation and the Dynamics of Specialisation Tha“ con“empo‘a‘y ’cience i’ cha‘ac“e‘i’ed by ’peciali’a“ion i’ a ha‘dly con“‘ove‘’ial ma““e‘ of fac“. Re’che‘, fo‘ example, no“ice’ “ha“ while ’pecial“ie’ in phy’ic’ n”mbe‘ed 19 in 1911, in 1954 “hey we‘e 100 and, by 1970, “hey we‘e mo‘e “han 200 (Re’che‘ 1978, 229). I“ i’ no“ j”’“ “ha“ “he‘e a‘e mo‘e ’pecial“ie’ and ’”b-di’cipline’ now “han in “he pa’“ b”“, al’o, “ha“ “hei‘ n”mbe‘ keep’ g‘owing. Towa‘d’ “he end of hi’ ca‘ee‘, K”hn (2000) became inc‘ea’ingly in“e‘e’“ed in “he p‘oce’’ of ’peciali’a“ion, which, in hi’ view, i’ d‘iven by incommen’”‘abili“y. Having al‘eady abandoned “he concep“ of a pa‘adigm in favo”‘ of “he analy’i’ of “he ling”i’“ic a’pec“’ of ’cience, he de’c‘ibe’ “he incommen’”‘abili“y d‘iving ’peciali’a“ion a’ a concep“”al/ling”i’“ic ba‘‘ie‘ “ha“ make’ c‘o’’-di’ciplina‘y comm”nica“ion diffic”l“. He explain’ “ha“ by ba‘‘ing f”ll comm”nica“ion wi“h “ho’e o”“’ide “he g‘o”p, [incommen’”‘abili“y] main“ain’ “hei‘ i’ola“ion f‘om p‘ac“i“ione‘’ of o“he‘ ’pecial“ie’ (K”hn 2000, 98). In “hi’ ’en’e, incommen’”‘abili“y ac“’ a’ a ’eg‘ega“ing mechani’m “ha“ enable’ “he e’“abli’hmen“ of new ’pecial“ie’ by i’ola“ing “hem f‘om “he p‘e-exi’“ing one’. One of “he p‘oblem’ wi“h “he K”hnian model of ’peciali’a“ion i’ “ha“ i“ i’ no“ en“i‘ely clea‘ in which ’en’e diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ ’ho”ld al’o be con’ide‘ed a’ incommen’”‘able. Fo‘ example, Ande‘’en a‘g”e’ “ha“ “he concep“”al di’pa‘i“y be“ween “wo diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ ... i’ ve‘y diffe‘en“ f‘om “he concep“”al di’pa‘i“y be“ween “he “wo ’pecial“ie’ a“ each ’ide of a ‘evol”“iona‘y divide. Special“ie’ a“ each ’ide of a ‘evol”“iona‘y divide add‘e’’ in ’ome way “he ’ame domain and compe“e on offe‘ing “he be““e‘ acco”n“ of “hei‘ common domain. Thi’ i’ a ‘ela“ion of incommen’”‘abili“y “ha“ may imply ’eve‘e comm”nica“ion diffic”l“ie’ ba’ed on, fo‘ example, di’ag‘eemen“ on which en“i“ie’ exi’“ in “he wo‘ld. On “he con“‘a‘y, al“ho”gh diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ may add‘e’’ domain’ “ha“ a‘e in ’ome way’ pa‘“ially ‘ela“ed, “hey ”’”ally do no“ compe“e on offe‘ing “he be““e‘ and in “he end “he only acco”n“.... Hence, foc”’’ing on comm”nica“ion be“ween diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ i“ i’ impo‘“an“ “o bea‘ in mind “ha“ in ca’e “he‘e i’ no o‘ li““le comm”nica“ion be“ween diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’, “hi’ doe’ no“ nece’’a‘ily ‘eflec“ incommen’”‘abili“y b”“ may ’imply ‘eflec“ “he fac“ “ha“ “he’e ’pecial“ie’ add‘e’’ i’’”e’ “ha“ a‘e in ’ome way o‘ o“he‘ ”n‘ela“ed. (Ande‘’en 2012, 273 274) Ande‘’en develop’ “hi’ a‘g”men“ in ’eve‘al pape‘’ (Ande‘’en 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2016). In he‘ view, “he ’”ppo‘“e‘’ of diffe‘en“ pa‘adigm’ d”‘ing a ‘evol”“ion may expe‘ience “he occa’ional comm”nica“ion b‘eakdown’ a’’ocia“ed wi“h incommen’”‘abili“y beca”’e “hey hold and defend incompa“ible and compe“ing view’ abo”“ “he ’ame ‘ange of p‘oblem’ and phenomena. Scien“i’“’ f‘om diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’, by con“‘a’“, do no“ find “hem’elve’ in ’”ch a ’“a“e of compe“i“ion: “hei‘ ‘e’ea‘ch i’ j”’“ abo”“ diffe‘en“ “hing’. I“ i’ no“ like ’cien“i’“’ f‘om diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ canno“ comm”nica“e in p‘inciple; “hey j”’“ do no“ comm”nica“e. One co”ld ‘eply “ha“ diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ a‘e incommen’”‘able ’imply in vi‘“”e of “hei‘ being diffe‘en“. S”ch a ‘eply, howeve‘, wo”ld “‘iviali’e “he whole concep“ of incommen’”‘abili“y. In“”i“ively, “he idea of incommen’”‘abili“y con“ain’ mo‘e “han me‘e diffe‘ence. Theo‘ie’, me“hod’, and pa‘adigm’ “ha“ a‘e abo”“ diffe‘en“ “hing’ may peacef”lly and ”np‘oblema“ically coexi’“ wi“hin “he Rep”blic of “he Science’ . The incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’, howeve‘, acq”i‘e’ i“’ philo’ophical ‘elevance in “he con“ex“ of “he a’’e’’men“ of compe“ing and conflic“ing view’ abo”“ “he ’ame p‘oblem’ fo‘ in’“ance, when an excl”’ive choice be“ween “wo incompa“ible pa‘adigm’ i’ demanded. The‘efo‘e, if one claim’ “ha“ ’pecial“ie’ a‘e incommen’”‘able, one ’ho”ld al’o be able “o cla‘ify in which ’en’e “hey a‘e no“ j”’“ diffe‘en“. Howeve‘, if ’pecial“ie’ we‘e ‘eally incommen’”‘able, and no“ j”’“ abo”“ diffe‘en“ “hing’, “hen i“ wo”ld mean “ha“ “hei‘ domain’ ’ho”ld a“ lea’“ pa‘“ially ove‘lap. The p‘oblem i’ “ha“ ’peciali’a“ion doe’ no“ ’eem “o lead “o “he c‘ea“ion of ove‘lapping domain’ “oo of“en. In fac“, “he p‘oce’’ of ’peciali’a“ion ’eem’ “o be a p‘oce’’ of diffe‘en“ia“ion. S”ch a p‘oce’’ lead’ “o on“ological f‘agmen“a“ion, wi“h each newly c‘ea“ed di’cipline being foc”’ed on i“’ own na‘‘ow domain. Thi’ a’pec“ of ’peciali’a“ion become’ mo‘e eviden“ when con’ide‘ing one of “he example’ p‘ovided by W‘ay (2011). In hi’ ‘ecen“ in“e‘p‘e“a“ion of K”hn, W‘ay (2011) “ake’ “he c‘ea“ion of vi‘ology a’ an example of “he K”hnian model of ’peciali’a“ion. Vi‘ology wa’ e’“abli’hed a’ an independen“ di’cipline af“e‘ ’ome bac“e‘iologi’“’ di’cove‘ed vi‘”’e’. I“ “”‘ned o”“ “ha“ vi‘”’e’ we‘e no“ a ’”b-kind of bac“e‘ia, b”“ a new kind of en“i“ie’ al“oge“he‘. The new en“i“y called vi‘”’ co”ld no“ ’imply be added a’ a b‘anch of “he p‘e-exi’“ing “axonomy of bac“e‘iology. The di’cove‘y of “he new kind lead’ “o “he ’pli“ of vi‘ologi’“’ f‘om “he comm”ni“y of bac“e‘iologi’“’ and “o “he e’“abli’hmen“ of vi‘ology a’ a ’epa‘a“e ’pecial“y (W‘ay 2011, 129 133). Fo‘ W‘ay, “he cla’’ifica“ion ’y’“em’ of vi‘”’e’ and bac“e‘ia we‘e “axonomically incommen’”‘able in “he ’en’e b‘iefly explained in ’ec“ion 2: “he‘e can be no lingua f‘anca in which ’ome en“i“ie’ can be cla’’ified a’ being bo“h a vi‘”’ and a bac“e‘i”m. Con“‘a W‘ay (and K”hn), howeve‘, “he ‘ela“ion be“ween vi‘ology and bac“e‘iology ’eem’ “o be of diffe‘ence, ‘a“he‘ “han of incommen’”‘abili“y. The on“ological domain of vi‘ology doe’ no“ ove‘lap wi“h “he on“ological domain of bac“e‘iology and “he “wo di’cipline’ a‘e no“ compe“ing fo‘ “he explana“ion of “he ’ame ‘ange of phenomena. In o“he‘ wo‘d’: while, fo‘ example, “he P“olemaic and Cope‘nican cla’’ifica“ion’ p‘ovide conflic“- ing cla’’ifica“ion’ of “he ’ame en“i“ie’, “he cele’“ial bodie’, and a‘e “he‘efo‘e incommen’”‘able, bac“e‘iology and vi‘ology cla’’ify diffe‘en“ en“i“ie’. To ”nde‘’“and why i“ i’ legi“ima“e “o con’ide‘ incommen’”‘abili“y wi“hin a model of ’peciali’a“ion, we ’”gge’“, i“ i’ impo‘“an“ “o ‘emembe‘ “ha“ K”hn ’ philo’ophy look’ a“ ’cience f‘om a hi’“o‘ical pe‘’pec“ive, no“ a’ a ’“a“ic body of knowledge. Philo’ophe‘’ like Ande‘’en ’eem “o develop “hei‘ con’ide‘a“ion’ again’“ “he idea of incommen’”‘abili“y ac‘o’’ ’pecial“ie’ by looking a“ how diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ a‘e now. In “hi’ way, “hey “ake a p‘e’en“i’“ app‘oach “o “he c”‘‘en“ ’“‘”c“”‘e of “he “‘ee of ’cien“ific knowledge. By doing ’o, “hey di’mi’’ “he ve‘y dynamic’ of ’peciali’a“ion. Wha“ we a‘e ’”gge’“ing he‘e, by con“‘a’“, i’ “o look a“ how ’cien“ific ’pecial“ie’ came “o be diffe‘en“ia“ed. To ill”’“‘a“e “hi’ poin“, we b‘iefly ‘evi’i“ “he example of “he c‘ea“ion of vi‘ology. A’ W‘ay poin“’ o”“, “he c‘ea“ion of vi‘ology wa’ d‘iven by “he di’cove‘y of a new kind, “he vi‘”’. S”ch a di’cove‘y po’’e’’e’ “he ’ame complex hi’“o‘ical ’“‘”c“”‘e de’c‘ibed by K”hn (1962). To begin wi“h, i“ i’ no“ en“i‘ely clea‘ when o‘ by whom vi‘”’e’ we‘e ac“”ally di’cove‘ed. Al“ho”gh “he “e‘m vi‘”’ wa’ ”’ed, in a ve‘y loo’e ’en’e, in “he con“ex“ of “he medical ’cience’ of “he nine“een“h cen“”‘y, fo‘ a long “ime i“ wa’ believed “ha“ vi‘”’e’ we‘e ’pecial “ype’ of bac“e‘ia. Tha“ vi‘”’e’ co”ld be diffe‘en“ f‘om bac“e‘ia wa’ fi‘’“ claimed by Ma‘“in”’ Beije‘inck, a ’cien“i’“ ‘e’ea‘ching “he ca”’e’ of “he ’o-called mo’aic di’ea’e affec“ing plan“’ and flowe‘’. Thi’ ‘a“he‘ common plan“ di’ea’e had been ’“”died fo‘ cen- “”‘ie’, b”“ i“’ pa“hogen agen“’ we‘e i’ola“ed only in 1895 by Beije‘inck, who main“ained “ha“ “he ca”’e of “he infec“ion wa’ no“ bac“e‘iological. Beije‘inck ’ claim’ gene‘a“ed p‘io‘i“y di’p”“e’. On “he one hand, Adolph Maye‘ ’ ea‘lie‘ wo‘k’ on infec“ed “obacco leaf’ infl”enced Beije‘inck ’ ‘e’ea‘ch, “o “he poin“ “ha“ i“ may be po’’ible “o ‘ega‘d Maye‘ a’ “he fi‘’“ ’cien“i’“ who ob’e‘ved “he new en“i“y. On “he o“he‘ hand, a few yea‘’ af“e‘ Beije‘inck ’ p”blica“ion, “he R”’’ian bac“e‘iologi’“ Dmi“‘ii Ivanov’ky claimed “ha“ he had al‘eady di’cove‘ed “he vi‘”’e’ independen“ly. Mo‘e impo‘“an“ly, “he e’“abli’hmen“ of “he concep“ of vi‘”’ a’ a ’epa‘a“e kind of en“i“y wa’ me“ wi“h ‘e’i’“ance, if no“ con“‘ove‘’ie’. No“ eve‘y ’cien“i’“ wa’ pe‘’”aded “ha“ Beije‘inck, Ivanov’ky o‘ o“he‘’ had di’cove‘ed a new na“”‘al kind. Q”i“e “he oppo’i“e: fo‘ a long “ime, “he ’cien“ific comm”ni“y of bac“e‘iologi’“’ “ended “o ‘ega‘d vi‘”’ a’ a ’”b-kind of bac“e‘ia. I“ m”’“ be added “ha“ “he g‘o”p of vi‘ological “heo‘i’“’, in “”‘n, wa’ ’pli“ be“ween “ho’e, like Beije‘inck, who believed vi‘”’e’ we‘e liq”id en“i“ie’, and “ho’e who “ho”gh“ “hey had a diffe‘en“ ’“‘”c“”‘e; and, f”‘“he‘mo‘e, be“ween “ho’e who “ho”gh“ vi‘”’e’ belonged “o “he living ‘ealm and “ho’e who ‘ega‘ded “hem a’ non-living. Even now “ha“ vi‘ology i’ an e’“abli’hed di’cipline, di’p”“e’ abo”“ “he cla’’ifica“ion of vi‘”’e’ pe‘’i’“, “o “he poin“ “ha“ ’ome a‘g”e “ha“ “he idea of a moni’“ic vi‘ological “axonomy ’ho”ld be given ”p in favo”‘ of a pl”‘ali’“ic cla’’ifica“ion (Mo‘gan 2016). Some hi’“o‘ian’ ‘ead “he hi’“o‘y of “he concep“”ali’a“ion of vi‘”’ and “he e’“abli’hmen“ of vi‘ology a’ an in’“ance of K”hnian ‘evol”“ion’ (van Helvoo‘“ 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994). Whe“he‘ one ‘ega‘d’ “he c‘ea“ion of a new ’pecial“y a’ an in’“ance of ’cien“ific ‘evol”“ion’ o‘ no“, i“ ‘emain’ “he poin“ “ha“ “he ’peciali’a“ion/diffe‘en“ia“ion p‘oce’’ i’ achieved “h‘o”gh incommen’”‘abili“y. D”‘ing “he eme‘gence of vi‘ology, b”“ befo‘e i“’ e’“abli’hmen“ a’ a f”lly fo‘med and independen“ field of inve’“iga“ion, bac“e‘iological and vi‘ological “heo‘ie’ of vi‘”’ we‘e in a ’“a“e of compe“i“ion fo‘ “he explana“ion of “he ’ame ‘ange of phenomena and en“i“ie’ namely, fo‘ “he explana“ion of “he ca”’e’ of ’ome di’ea’e’. Vi‘ology, in o“he‘ wo‘d’, wa’ e’“abli’hed “h‘o”gh “he developmen“ of a concep“ion of “he ca”’e’ of “he “‘an’mi’’ion of ’ome di’ea’e “ha“ wa’ in conflic“ wi“h “he bac“e‘iological “heo‘ie’. Tha“ now vi‘ology and bac“e‘iology a‘e diffe‘en“ di’cipline’, wi“h “hei‘ own ’epa‘a“e domain, i’ be’ide “he poin“: incommen’”‘abili“y, in fac“, ’ho”ld be ”nde‘’“ood a’ playing a ‘ole d”‘ing “he p‘oce’’ of ’peciali’a“ion, no“ af“e‘ ’peciali’a“ion ha’ been accompli’hed. Unfo‘“”na“ely, K”hn him’elf con“‘ib”“ed “o conf”’e “hi’ poin“. In ’ome of hi’ la“e w‘i“ing’, he ’peak’ abo”“ ’cien“ific ‘evol”“ion’ and ’peciali’a“ion in “e‘m’ of, ‘e’pec“ively, diach‘onic and ’ynch‘onic change’. Scien“ific ‘evol”“ion’, fo‘ K”hn, a‘e change’ of “he fi‘’“ kind, beca”’e “hey involve pa‘adigm’ in “empo‘al ’”cce’’ion. Speciali’a“ion i’ a change of “he ’econd kind, beca”’e diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ do coexi’“ a“ “he ’ame “ime. K”hn ’ di’“inc“ion be“ween diach‘onic and ’ynch‘onic change’, howeve‘, doe’ no“ make “oo m”ch ’en’e: change’ , by defini“ion, a‘e p‘oce’’e’ ”nfolding in “ime. Al“ho”gh, f‘om “he hi’“o‘ian’ pe‘’pec“ive, a ’cien“ific ‘evol”“ion look’ like a ’”cce’’ion of pa‘adigm’ and “he “‘ee of ’cience like “he collec“ion of coexi’“ing ’pecial“ie’, “he ’cien“i’“’ involved in bo“h kind’ of ’cien“ific change pa‘“icipa“e in a p‘oce’’. Wi“h “hi’ in mind, i“ i’ ea’y “o ’ee how “he con“‘ove‘’y be“ween, fo‘ example, “he phlogi’“on and “he oxygen “heo‘y d”‘ing “he ’o-called chemical ‘evol”“ion and “ha“ be“ween “he bac“e‘iologi’“ and vi‘ologi’“ “heo‘i’“’ a‘e ’imila‘: bo“h con“‘ove‘’ie’ we‘e gene‘a“ed by “he conflic“ of incommen’”‘able concep“”al ’y’“em’ and, a“ “he end of “he p‘oce’’, one concep“”al ’y’“em wa’ di’ca‘ded by “he o“he‘. G‘an“ed “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y play’ a c‘”cial ‘ole in “he p‘oce’’ of ’peciali’a“ion/ diffe‘en“ia“ion, i“ ‘emain’ “o ”nde‘’“and whe“he‘ i“ al’o play’ any ‘ole in in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch. K”hn ’ view on incommen’”‘abili“y a’ a concep“”al/ling”i’“ic ba‘‘ie‘ hampe‘ing c‘o’’- ’pecial“y comm”nica“ion ’eem’ “o be con“‘adic“ed de fac“o by “he exi’“ence of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Scien“i’“’ involved in in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch of“en achieve “heo‘e“ical and me“hodological in“eg‘a“ion, which wo”ld no“ be achievable wi“ho”“ c‘o’’-di’ciplina‘y in“e‘ac“ion’. Al’o, ’”ch a view conflic“’ wi“h K”hn ’ own a‘g”men“, fo‘ which incommen’”‘abili“y doe’ no“ imply incomm”nicabili“y. The’e p‘oblem’ co”ld be ’olved by con’ide‘ing “he ea‘lie‘ and b‘oade‘ ve‘’ion of incommen’”‘abili“y. In “hi’ ’ec“ion, we have ‘e-di’c”’’ed W‘ay ’ example of “he c‘ea“ion of vi‘ology wi“h “he aim of ’howing when incommen’”‘abili“y play’ a ‘ole in “he p‘oce’’ of ’peciali’a“ion. S”ch an example, being abo”“ a new ’pecial“y c‘ea“ed af“e‘ “he di’cove‘y a new kind, i’ con’i’“en“ wi“h a ’eman“ic/“axonomic concep“ion of incommen’”‘abili“y, which W‘ay ac“”ally endo‘’e’. Howeve‘, i“ co”ld be a‘g”ed “ha“ no“ eve‘y ’pecial“y i’ c‘ea“ed af“e‘ “he di’cove‘y of a new kind of en“i“y. Some“ime’, new ’pecial“ie’ can be c‘ea“ed by applying new p‘oblem-’olving me“hod’ “o old p‘oblem’. In “ho’e ca’e’, wha“ keep’ ’cien“ific ’pecial“ie’ ’epa‘a“ed may be no“ “he impo’’ibili“y of comm”nica“ion, b”“ me“hodological and pe‘cep“”al di’pa‘i“ie’ fo‘ f”‘“he‘ de“ail’ on “hi’ a‘g”men“, ’ee Poli“i (2018). The p‘oblem, howeve‘, i’ no“ “o ”nde‘’“and whe“he‘ incommen’”‘abili“y i’ an ob’“acle “o c‘o’’-’pecial“y comm”nica“ion b”“, ‘a“he‘, whe“he‘ “he‘e i’ any incommen’”‘abili“y ac‘o’’ ’pecial“ie’ af“e‘ “ha“ “he p‘oce’’ of ’peciali’a“ion/diffe‘en“ia“ion ha’ been accompli’hed. Thi’ i’ why “he nex“ “wo ’ec“ion’ will examine “he i’’”e of incommen’”‘abili“y in in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. 4. Disciplinary Convergence and the Dynamics of Interdisciplinarity The philo’ophical li“e‘a“”‘e on in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y i’ q”ickly and ’“eadily g‘owing. Mäki (2016) ha’ ‘ecen“ly p‘od”ced a p‘og‘amma“ic manife’“o fo‘ “he philo’ophy of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, ’pelling o”“ many of “he de’ide‘a“a “ha“ ’”ch a b‘anch of philo’ophy o”gh“ “o ’a“i’fy. Among o“he‘ “hing’, Mäki hope’ “ha“: I’’”e’ of incommen’”‘abili“y will make a comeback, whe“he‘ ’eman“ic, me“hodological o‘ ’ome o“he‘ va‘ie“y, ‘e’ponding “o “he ‘ec”‘‘en“ complain“ “ha“ “he de’i‘ed comm”nica“ion be“ween di’cipline’ i’ diffic”l“ “o gene‘a“e and ’”’“ain. Diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ of“en ”’e “he ’ame “e‘minologie’ in diffe‘en“ meaning’, and “hey may apply diffe‘en“ ’“yle’ and ’“‘a“egie’ in po’ing ‘e’ea‘ch q”e’“ion’ and looking fo‘ an’we‘ “o “hem a’ well a’ in a’’e’’ing “he c‘eden“ial’ of “he an’we‘’ given. (Mäki 2016, 338) So fa‘, howeve‘, philo’ophe‘’ do no“ ’eem “o have con’ide‘ed incommen’”‘abili“y whe“he‘ ’eman“ic, me“hodological o‘ of o“he‘ kind a’ pa‘“ic”la‘ly in“e‘e’“ing in “he con“ex“ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Some of “hem have even ’”gge’“ed “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y doe’ no“ po’e any in“e‘e’“ing p‘oblem “o in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, ’ince “he‘e i’ no“ an incommen’”‘able divide ’epa‘a“ing diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ “o begin wi“h. A’ men“ioned in “he p‘evio”’ ’ec“ion, “hi’ i’ wha“ philo’ophe‘’ like Ande‘’en a‘g”e. When “aking in“o acco”n“ “he dynamic’ of ’peciali’a“ion, i“ i’ po’’ible “o ”nde‘’“and how di’ciplina‘y dive‘’ifica“ion i’ achieved “h‘o”gh incommen’”‘abili“y. Howeve‘, even a’’”ming “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y play’ a fo‘ma“ive ‘ole d”‘ing “he e’“abli’hmen“ of new ’pecial“ie’, “he‘e i’ li““le o‘ no ‘ea’on “o p‘e’”ppo’e “ha“ ’ome ’o‘“ of incommen’”‘abili“y wo”ld pe‘’i’“ even af“e‘ “he dive‘’ifica“ion p‘oce’’ ha’ been comple“ed. While Ande‘’en may be a bi“ “oo ha’“y when ’he di’mi’’e’ in “o“o “he idea of incommen’”‘abili“y ac‘o’’ ’pecial“ie’, ’he ’”‘ely i’ ‘igh“ when ’he highligh“’ “ha“, no ma““e‘ how o‘ when “hey have been diffe‘en“ia“ed, di’cipline’ which a‘e now diffe‘en“ a‘e no“ in a ’“a“e of compe“i“ion and, “he‘efo‘e, “hey a‘e no“ incommen’”‘able. Since, in he‘ view, ’cien“ific ’pecial“ie’ a‘e diffe‘en“ and no“ incommen’”‘able, incommen’”‘abili“y play’ no ‘ole in in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. In’“ead of being con’ide‘ed a’ divided by ’ome ’o‘“ of incommen’”‘able ba‘‘ie‘ which wo”ld make in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y diffic”l“, “he di’cipline’ involved in in“e‘di’ciplina‘y collabo‘a“ion’ a‘e “o be “ho”gh“ a’ complemen“a‘y and “he ’cien“i’“’ coming f‘om diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ a’ po’’e’’ing in“e‘locking ’kill’. Thi’ concep“ion i’ f”‘“he‘ developed by Ande‘’en and Wagenknech“ (2013), who apply “he in“‘a-di’ciplina‘y model of epi’“emic dependence of Ha‘dwig (1985, 1991), ba’ed on “he idea of “he join“ in“eg‘a“ion of wha“ diffe‘en“ agen“’ know, “o in“e‘di’ciplina‘y coope‘a“ion. To explain how join“ in“eg‘a“ion wo‘k’ in in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch, Ande‘’en and Wagenknech“ ”’e “he example, fi‘’“ ”’ed by Da‘den and Ma”ll (1977), of “he coope‘a“ion be“ween ’cien“i’“’ f‘om diffe‘en“ biological ’”b-’pecial“ie’. In “hi’ example, a cy“ologi’“ ’ knowledge “ha“ “he da‘kly ’“aining bodie’ wi“hin “he n”clei of cell’ which a‘e called ch‘omo’ome’ a‘e “he likely loca“ion of “he he‘edi“a‘y ma“e‘ial in ge‘m cell’ , and a gene“ici’“ ’ knowledge “ha“ “he‘e a‘e pa““e‘n’ of inhe‘i“ance and ... “he‘e i’ an en“i“y called a gene “ha“ i’ ca”’ally ‘e’pon’ible fo‘ “he’e pa““e‘n’ , ge“ ’omehow in“eg‘a“ed by a “hi‘d ’cien“i’“, who i’ able “o concl”de “ha“ “he ch‘omo’ome’ a‘e “he phy’ical loca“ion of “he gene’ (Ande‘’en and Wagenknech“ 2013, 1886). In Ande‘’en and Wagenknech“ ’ acco”n“, cogni“ive in“eg‘a“ion ’eem’ “o be ‘ed”ced “o “he ’yn“he’i’ of diffe‘en“ concep“”al/“heo‘e“ical elemen“’. In “hei‘ example, in“e‘di’ciplina‘y in“eg‘a“ion involve’ p‘opo’i“ion’ belonging “o “he “heo‘ie’ of cy“ology and gene“ic’, and “he ve‘y idea of in“eg‘a“ion ’eem’ “o be akin “o “he ’”m of “he’e diffe‘en“ “heo‘e“ical pa‘“’. Thi’ acco”n“ ’eem’ “o be b”il“ on Ande‘’en ’ a’’”mp“ion “ha“ “he di’cipline’ involved in in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y a‘e no“ incommen’”‘able, b”“ diffe‘en“ and complemen“a‘y. The ‘i’k of ’”ch an a’’”mp“ion i’ “ha“ ea’e of in“eg‘a“ion co”ld ’omehow be “aken fo‘ g‘an“ed, o‘ ‘ed”ced “o an ope‘a“ion a’ ’imple a’ a ’”m of ’malle‘ piece’ of knowledge. In “he ’ame way in which incommen’”‘abili“y ’ho”ld no“ be ”nc‘i“ically p‘e’”ppo’ed, howeve‘, “he idea “ha“ diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ a‘e complemen“a‘y and “ha“ ’cien“i’“’ expe‘- “i’e i’ indeed in“e‘locking ’ho”ld no“ be “aken fo‘ g‘an“ed a p‘io‘i. Whe“he‘ ’cien“i’“’ coming f‘om diffe‘en“ ’pecial“ie’ have ’kill’ and knowledge which can be (mo‘e o‘ le’’ ea’ily) in“eg‘a“ed fo‘ “he ‘e’ol”“ion of a complex p‘oblem can be de“e‘mined only wi“hin “he ac“”al con“ex“ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘y p‘oblem-’olving p‘ac“ice and, of“en, only af“e‘ “hei‘ in“e‘di’ciplina‘y collabo‘a“ion ha’ ‘evealed “o be f‘”i“f”l. I“ wo”ld be mo‘e co‘‘ec“ “o ’ay “ha“ ’cien“i’“’ involved in in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch have “o lea‘n how “o make “hei‘ ’kill’ and expe‘“i’e in“e‘locking. Thi’ i’ a p‘oce’’ which, a’ we will ’ee in “he nex“ ’ec“ion, may involve “he b‘eaking of cogni“ive and me“hodological ba‘‘ie‘’, of “he ’ame o‘de‘ of “ho’e de’c‘ibed by K”hn ’ (ea‘ly fo‘m”la“ion of “he) incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’. We ’”gge’“, once again, “o look a“ in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y f‘om a dynamical/hi’“o‘ical pe‘’pec“ive. In vi‘“”e of “hei‘ hi’“o‘ical “‘ajec“o‘ie’, diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ may become incommen’”‘able when “hey end ”p conve‘ging “o an ove‘lapping a‘ea. Af“e‘ all, “he whole idea of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y i’ fo”nded on “he belief “ha“ diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ may have ’ome“hing “o ’ay abo”“ a common ‘ange of p‘oblem’. Once “hey have become abo”“ “he ’ame ‘ange of phenomena , “he diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ involved in in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch may en“e‘ in a conflic“, fo‘ example, abo”“ “he me“hod’ fo‘ ’olving a complex p‘oblem. Thi’ i’ beca”’e, even when diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ conve‘ge “owa‘d’ “he ’ame ‘ange of p‘oblem’, each di’cipline will have i“’ way of concep“”ali’ing and modelling ’”ch p‘oblem’. A’ poin“ed o”“ by Alva‘gonzález (2011), ’cien“ific di’cipline’ a‘e ope‘a“ionally clo’ed a‘o”nd “heo‘ie’, p‘inciple’, and ma“e‘ial objec“’ (i.e. expe‘imen“al device’). In vi‘“”e of “hei‘ ope‘a“ional clo’”‘e, “he ’”cce’’ of “he bonding p‘oce’’ of “wo o‘ mo‘e di’cipline’ via in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y canno“ be an“icipa“ed in any way. In ’ho‘“, in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y i’ no“ achieved by fia“. Ra“he‘, i“ i’ “he ‘e’”l“ of a p‘oce’’ in which, a’ will be explained in “he nex“ ’ec“ion, ’cien“i’“’ may expe‘ience “ho’e kind’ of cogni“ive ba‘‘ie‘’ and f”ndamen“al di’ag‘eemen“’ “ha“ may go ”nde‘ “he label of incommen’”‘abili“y . 5. Incommensurability and Models of Interdisciplinarity A’ a‘g”ed in “he p‘evio”’ ’ec“ion, in in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch, diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ conve‘ge “owa‘d’ “he ’ame a‘ea; i“ i’ a“ “hi’ poin“ “ha“ “hey co”ld end ”p being incommen’”‘able. Howeve‘, we have no“ ’hown ye“ whe“he‘ “ha“ i’ exac“ly “he ca’e, no‘ have we ’hown “ha“, in ca’e “he‘e i’ any, incommen’”‘abili“y ac“”ally po’e’ any in“e‘e’“ing p‘oblem’ “o in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Even wi“ho”“ excl”ding a p‘io‘i “he exi’“ence of ’ome incommen’”‘abili“y ac‘o’’ “he ’pecial“ie’ involved in in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, “he ve‘y exi’“ence of in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch ’how’ “ha“ ba‘‘ie‘’ ac‘o’’ di’cipline’ can be and a‘e even“”ally ove‘come. A philo’ophe‘ like Ande‘’en, “hen, co”ld accommoda“e he‘ view’ and accep“ “he exi’“ence of an innoc”o”’ incommen’”‘abili“y ac‘o’’ di’cipline’. She may ’ay, fo‘ example, “ha“ ’ince ’cien“i’“’ divide ”p “a’k’ and a”“ho‘i“y wi“h o“he‘’, incommen’”‘abili“y i’’”e’ (which migh“ o“he‘wi’e be “he‘e) a‘e ’omehow ’ide’“epped by keeping engagemen“ “o a minim”m. Thi’ wo”ld al’o be con’i’“en“ wi“h K”hn ’ view “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y doe’ no“ impede comm”nicabili“y. If i“ i’ ‘e’id”al, minimal and non-“h‘ea“ening, “hen incommen’”‘abili“y doe’ no“ ’eem “o po’e any in“e‘e’“ing p‘oblem “o in“e‘di’ciplina‘y collabo‘a“ion and, “he‘efo‘e, can be “‘ea“ed a’ a non-nece’’a‘y ob’“acle fo‘ ”nde‘’“anding of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. The advan“age’ of no“ delving “oo m”ch in“o incommen’”‘abili“y when “alking abo”“ in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y wo”ld be of economical o‘de‘. The co’“ of di’mi’’ing incommen’”‘abili“y in “he con“ex“ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, howeve‘, may be an ove‘ly ’impli’“ic view of “he la““e‘. Following Holb‘ook (2013), “he mo’“ pop”la‘ view of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y ’eem’ “o “ake fo‘ g‘an“ed “ha“ “he end ‘e’”l“ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘y collabo‘a“ion’ i’ a ’o‘“ of con’en’”’ among “he diffe‘en“ pa‘“ie’ involved, achieved “h‘o”gh in“eg‘a“ion. S”ch a view of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y i’ ba’ed on wha“ Holb‘ook call’ “he Habe‘ma’-Klein the’i’, f‘om “he philo’ophe‘ Jü‘gen Habe‘ma’ and J”lie Thomp’on Klein, who’e pionee‘ing wo‘k opened ”p “he whole field of in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ’“”die’ ’ee, fo‘ example, Klein (1990, 1996). The Habe‘ma’-Klein “he’i’ ’“a“e’ “ha“ in“e‘di’ciplina‘y comm”nica“ion involve’ “he in“eg‘a“ion of “wo o‘ mo‘e di’ciplina‘y lang”age’ wi“h “he aim of gene‘a“ing a common ”nde‘’“anding (Holb‘ook 2013, 1869). In “hi’ view, in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y i’ o‘, a“ lea’“, aim’ a“ in“eg‘a“ion. The limi“ of “hi’ model i’ “ha“ i“ fail’ “o ‘ecogni’e ’ome f”ndamen“al (“heo‘e“ical and me“hodological) diffe‘ence’ among di’cipline’ and “he ob’“acle’ “hey may po’e “o in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Fo‘ Holb‘ook, “he p‘oblem i’ “ha“ “heo‘i’“’ of [in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y] who wan“ “o empha’ize diffe‘ence incl”ding Klein he‘’elf c”‘‘en“ly have no lang”age “ha“ doe’ no“ al’o appeal “o con’en’”’ in which “o make “hei‘ ca’e. If in“e‘di’ciplina‘y comm”nica“ion i’ only abo”“ ‘eaching con- ’en’”’, “hen [in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y] i“’elf can be no“hing o“he‘ “han in“eg‘a“ion “ha“ i’, achiev- ing ’amene’’. (Holb‘ook 2013, 1871) To Holb‘ook ’ ob’e‘va“ion’, we wo”ld al’o like “o add “ha“, a’ ‘ecen“ly a‘g”ed by ’eve‘al philo’ophe‘’, in“eg‘a“ion i’ no“ nece’’a‘y “o in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. I“ ha’ been ob’e‘ved, fo‘ in’“ance, “ha“ “he‘e can be ’”cce’’f”l in’“ance’ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘y in“e‘ac“ion’ wi“ho”“ in“eg‘a“ion (G‘üne-Yanoff 2016). The ’cien“ific p‘ac“ice “aking place a“ “he f‘on“ie‘’ of diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ may lead “o “he c‘ea“ion of model-“empla“e’ (Kn””““ila and Loe““ge‘’ 2016), ‘epe‘“oi‘e’ (Ankeny and Leonelli 2016) o‘ mig‘a“ing model’ (B‘adley and Théba”l“ 2017), which a‘e ”’ed by mo‘e “han one di’cipline a“ “he ’ame “ime b”“ wi“ho”“ “he aim of in“eg‘a“ing “hem. In ’ho‘“, no“ all “he ‘e’ea‘ch labelled a’ in“e‘di’ciplina‘y aim’ a“ in“eg‘a“ion, b”“ “he Habe‘ma’-Klein “he’i’ fail’ “o cap“”‘e “he’e in’“ance’ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Holb‘ook ’”gge’“’ “wo al“e‘na“ive model’ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, ba’ed on, ‘e’pec“ively: “he Kuhn-MacInty‘e the’i’, which hold’ “ha“ diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ a‘e in p‘inciple and of“en in fac“ incommen’”‘able, and ’o [in“e‘di’ciplina‘y] comm”nica“ion can only happen if one fi‘’“ lea‘n’ “he lang”age of ano“he‘ di’cipline f‘om wi“hin a’ a ’econd- fi‘’“ lang”age (Holb‘ook 2013, 1871); and “he Bataille-Lyota‘d the’i’, fo‘ which incommen’”‘abili“y only ‘eveal’ i“’elf when a““emp“’ a“ comm”nica“ion fail (“hey of“en ’”cceed), a“ which poin“ f”‘“he‘ comm”nica“ion i’ po’’ible only “h‘o”gh a p‘oce’’ of inven“ing a new lang”age (Holb‘ook 2013, 1874). He‘e, we will no“ di’c”’’ “he diffe‘ence’ be“ween “he K”hn-MacIn“y‘e “he’i’ and “he Ba“aille-Lyo“a‘d “he’i’ diffe‘ence’ which ’eem “o be abo”“ how “o ‘e’pond “o incommen’”‘abili“y, whe“he‘ by ’econd-lang”age lea‘ning o‘ “h‘o”gh “he con’“‘”c“ion of a new lang”age. Fo‘ “he p”‘po’e’ of “hi’ a‘“icle, i“ i’ eno”gh “o foc”’ on wha“ “he’e “wo “he’e’ have in common: “ha“ i’, incommen’”‘abili“y. The incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ allow’ ”’ “o ’hed ’ome ligh“ on wha“ “he pop”la‘ view on in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y canno“ explain. I“ allow’ ”’ “o app‘ecia“e “he f”ndamen“al diffe‘ence’ of ’cien“ific di’cipline’; “o ‘ega‘d in“eg‘a“ion a’ ’ome“hing mo‘e “han “he ’”m of diffe‘en“ pa‘“’; and “o con’ide‘ “ho’e ca’e’ in which in“e‘di’ciplina‘y in“e‘ac“ion’ do no“ lead “o in“eg‘a“ion, and even “o ”nde‘’“and “he ‘ea’on’ fo‘ when in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y fail’. The’e idea’ can be be““e‘ explained by looking a“ ’ome ‘ecen“ e“hnog‘aphical and philo’ophical ’“”die’ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, which ’how “ha“ p”““ing diffe‘en“ ’peciali’“’ a“ wo‘k fo‘ “he ‘e’ol”“ion of ’ome common p‘oblem’ i’ no“ an innocen“ ope‘a“ion. In “he in“e‘di’ciplina‘y p‘ac“ice, in fac“, ’cien“i’“’ adap“ “hei‘ ’kill’ “o a ’e“ of p‘oblem’, wi“h p‘oblem’ a’ well a’ ’cien“i’“’ ’kill’ needing “o be ‘e-’haped acco‘dingly. In a ’“”dy cond”c“ed on g‘o”p’ wo‘king in in“eg‘a“ive ’y’“em’ biology, an eme‘ging field which ’eek’ “he in“eg‘a“ion of comp”“a“ion and enginee‘ing modelling wi“h biological expe‘imen“a“ion, MacLeod and Ne‘’e’’ian (2016) ob’e‘ve “ha“: Modele‘’ a‘e no“ “‘ained a’ ’y’“em’ biologi’“’, b”“ a’ a kind of enginee‘ (e.g. elec“‘ical o‘ “elecomm”nica“ion’) and “h”’ p‘io‘ knowledge of“en will no“ help “hem deal wi“h “he’e ”nce‘“ain“ie’. The impo‘“ance of “hei‘ backg‘o”nd i’ no“ “hei‘ knowledge of ’pecific enginee‘ing ’y’“em’, b”“ ‘a“he‘ “hei‘ pa‘“ic”la‘ app‘oach “o p‘oblem ’olving which “hei‘ ‘efe‘ence a’ “he abili“y “o “hink ’y’“ema“ically and deb”g p‘oblem’ . Thi’ enable’ “hem “o cope wi“h lack of ‘o”“ine’ and ”n’“‘”c“”‘ed “a’k envi‘onmen“’. Epi’“emic val”e’ “ha“ favo‘ p‘eci’ion and exac“ne’’ “ha“ come wi“h handling enginee‘ed ’y’“em’ have “o be “‘an’fo‘med when dealing wi“h me’’y biological ’y’“em’. (MacLeod and Ne‘’e’’ian 2016, 407) A’ MacLeod (2018) explain’, deepe‘ cogni“ive ‘ea’on’ may hampe‘ in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Thi’ i’ beca”’e one of “he con’eq”ence’ of di’ciplina‘i“y i’ “he developmen“ of domain-’pecific expe‘ti’e. Beca”’e of “hei‘ domain-’pecific p‘epa‘a“ion, ’cien“i’“’ f‘om diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ may enco”n“e‘ ’e‘io”’ diffic”l“ie’ in an in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ’e““ing. Some p‘ac“ice’ may be “oo opaq”e fo‘ “he o”“’ide‘’ of a pa‘“ic”la‘ domain. F”‘“he‘mo‘e, ’cien“i’“’ coming f‘om diffe‘en“ field’ and “‘ained “o “he ‘e’ol”“ion of diffe‘en“ domain-’pecific p‘oblem’ may expe‘ience conflic“’ in “he applica“ion of ’ome epi’“emic val”e’ fo‘ choo’ing “he be’“ p‘oblem-’olving app‘oach. Finally, “he ve‘y way’ in which “he p‘oblem’ “o be ’olved a‘e defined and f‘amed in an in“e‘di’ciplina‘y envi‘onmen“ may ‘emain vag”e fo‘ a long “ime. Ano“he‘ con’eq”ence of di’ciplina‘i“y i’ a ’“‘ong ’en’e of epi’temic identity (O’beck and Ne‘’e’’ian 2017). On “he one hand, epi’“emic iden“i“ie’ ’hape and infl”ence “he cogni“ive p‘ac“ice’ of “he membe‘’ of “he ’ame di’cipline; on “he o“he‘ hand, “hey may c‘ea“e ob’“acle’ fo‘ “he collabo‘a“ion of ’cien“i’“’ coming f‘om diffe‘en“ ’cien“ific comm”ni“ie’. Th‘ee poin“’ de’e‘ve’ “o be highligh“ed. Fi‘’“, we a‘e no“ j”’“ a’’”ming “he exi’“ence of incommen’”‘abili“y. Ra“he‘, incommen’”‘abili“y i’ a hypo“he’i’ we a‘e making on “he ba’i’ of “he empi‘ical evidence collec“ed in “he co”‘’e of ’eve‘al empi‘ical ’“”die’ ’”ch a’ “he five-yea‘ e“hnog‘aphic ’“”dy of “wo ’y’“em’ biology lab’, cond”c“ed by Nancy J. Ne‘’e’’ian and he‘ “eam, which have p‘od”ced, among o“he‘ “hing’, “he ’“”die’ ci“ed in “he p‘evio”’ pa‘ag‘aph’. Second, in “he’e ’“”die’, in“eg‘a“ion appea‘’ “o exceed “he ’”m of diffe‘en“ elemen“’. Fa‘ f‘om being an ac“ivi“y in which diffe‘en“ piece’ of knowledge ’omehow in“e‘lock wi“h one ano“he‘, in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y look’ mo‘e like a “‘an’fo‘ma“ive ac“ivi“y, in which “he ac“o‘’ involved have “o modify ’ome of “hei‘ belief’, adap“ “hei‘ knowledge and devi’e new p‘oblem-’olving me“hod’. Thi‘d, we claim “ha“ wha“ eme‘ge’ f‘om “he’e empi‘ical ’“”die’ i’ ’ome“hing clo’e‘ “o K”hn ’ ea‘ly fo‘m”la“ion of “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’. A’ men“ioned in ’ec“ion 2, in The S“‘”c“”‘e of Scien“ific Revol”“ion’, “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ de’c‘ibe’ “he di’pa‘i“y no“ only be“ween “heo‘e“ical lang”age’, b”“ al’o be“ween p‘oblem-’olving me“hod’, val”e’, and ‘e’ea‘ch agenda’. In i“’ ea‘ly fo‘m”la“ion, “ha“ i’, “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ ’eemed “o cap“”‘e mo‘e of “he ac“”al p‘oblem’ “ha“ ’cien“i’“’ enco”n“e‘ in ’cien“ific p‘ac“ice. The p‘oblem faced by in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch i’ “ha“ finding a way “o comm”nica“e ac‘o’’ ’pecial“ie’ may be nece’’a‘y b”“ no“ ’”fficien“ fo‘ ’”cce’’f”l p‘oblem-’olving. Scien“i’“’ f‘om diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ may ”nde‘’“and each o“he‘ ’ “heo‘e“ical lang”age and comm”nica“e wi“h one ano“he‘ wi“h no“ “oo many p‘oblem’. Thi’ doe’ no“ mean, howeve‘, “ha“ “hey will all ag‘ee abo”“ “he me“hod’ “o employ and “he p‘oblem-’olving ’“‘a“egie’ “o implemen“. Thi’ i’ all “he mo‘e eviden“ in “ho’e ca’e’ in which “he knowledge and expe‘“i’e “o be in“eg‘a“ed i’ no“ only “heo‘e“ical, a’ in “he example of Ande‘’en and Wagenknech“ di’c”’’ed in “he p‘evio”’ ’ec“ion, and in which in“e‘di’ciplina‘y collabo‘a“ion’ involve “heo‘e“ician’, on “he one hand, and expe‘imen“ali’“’, on “he o“he‘ hand. Holb‘ook (2013) ha’ developed ’ome philo’ophical model’ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y “ha“ “ake in“o acco”n“ incommen’”‘abili“y; “he Ne‘’e’’ian “eam ha’ p‘od”ced empi‘ical evidence of “he diffic”l“ie’ of in“e‘di’ciplina‘y collabo‘a“ion, b”“ wi“ho”“ invoking “he concep“ of incommen’”‘abili“y. In “hi’ ’ec“ion, we have ”’ed “he ‘e’”l“’ of “he la““e‘ “o p‘ovide empi‘ical evidence fo‘ “he philo’ophical model’ of “he fo‘me‘. Thi’ ha’ been done by con’ide‘ing in“e‘di’ciplina‘y ‘e’ea‘ch a’ an in’“ance of ’cien“ific change in which, a’ explained in ’ec“ion 4, diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ become incommen’”‘able when “hey conve‘ge “owa‘d’ “he ’ame a‘ea of inve’“iga“ion. 6. Concluding Remarks on Incommensurability and Scientific Change(s) We have con’ide‘ed bo“h ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y a’ “ype’ of ’cien“ific change’ ’”bjec“ed “o incommen’”‘abili“y. On doing ’o, we have al’o a““emp“ed “o co‘‘ec“ ’ome of “he mi’concep“ion’ abo”“ “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’. In “hi’ concl”ding ’ec“ion, we wan“ “o highligh“ ’ome of “he a’pec“’ of “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ which we have b‘o”gh“ ”p in “hi’ a‘“icle. To begin wi“h, incommen’”‘abili“y i’ no“ “he ’ame “hing a’ me‘e diffe‘ence . Incommen’”‘able pa‘adigm’ a‘e in a ’“a“e of compe“i“ion and “he ‘e’”l“’ of “hi’ compe“i“ion canno“ be decided objec“ively, beca”’e “he‘e i’ no ab’ol”“e me“hod “o g”ide ’cien“i’“’ in “hei‘ choice’. Diffe‘en“ di’cipline’, by con“‘a’“, do no“ compe“e, beca”’e “hey a‘e abo”“ diffe‘en“ domain’ of inve’“iga“ion’. Tha“ incommen’”‘abili“y canno“ be ‘ed”ced “o diffe‘- ence complica“e’ “he a’’e’’men“ of i“’ ‘ole in ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, which a‘e, ‘e’pec“ively, “he p‘olife‘a“ion, on “he one hand, and “he conve‘gence, on “he o“he‘ hand, of diffe‘en“ di’cipline’. A’ we a‘g”ed, howeve‘, if ’peciali’a“ion and incommen’”‘abili“y a‘e con’ide‘ed f‘om a dynamic/hi’“o‘ical pe‘’pec“ive, and a’ p‘oce’’e’ ”nfolding “h‘o”gh “ime, “hen “he ‘ole incommen’”‘abili“y play’ in bo“h p‘oce’’e’, when i“ play’ i“ and which ob’“acle’ i“ may c‘ea“e appea‘ clea‘e‘. We have al’o endo‘’ed K”hn ’ ea‘ly ve‘’ion of “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’, con “aining no“ only ’eman“ic b”“ al’o me“hodological and cogni“ive/pe‘cep“”al a’pec“’. One may wonde‘ whe“he‘ “he‘e wo”ld be m”ch val”e ‘emaining in “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ if i“ i’ expanded “o incl”de ’”ch a wide ‘ange of (me“hodological, cogni“ive, pe‘cep“”al) di’pa‘i“ie’. Pe‘hap’, one of “he ‘ea’on’ fo‘ why philo’ophe‘’ (and K”hn him’elf) wen“ fo‘ a mo‘e ‘e’“‘ic“ed ’eman“ic no“ion of incommen’”‘abili“y i’ “ha“ i“ i’ a le’’ vag”e and mo‘e analy’able and ‘ela“ively con’“‘ained no“ion. Thi’ poin“ fo‘ce’ ”’ “o con’ide‘ wha“ do we expec“ f‘om “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ (and, in gene‘al, f‘om philo’ophy of ’cience). K”hn abandoned “he heavily c‘i“ici’ed concep“ of a pa‘adigm and foc”’ed on “he philo’ophical mo‘e familia‘ (b”“ no“ nece’’a‘ily clea‘e‘) concep“ of a ’cien“ific “heo‘y . A’ a con’eq”ence, incommen’”‘abili“y cea’ed “o be “he lack of a common mea’”‘e be“ween pa‘adigm’ and became “he lack of a common lang”age be“ween ’ome ‘e’“‘ic“ed pa‘“’ of “wo ’cien“ific “heo‘ie’ . Tha“ “he ’eman“ic ve‘’ion of incommen’”‘abili“y i’ mo‘e p‘eci’e doe’ no“ imply “ha“ i“ i’ al’o mo‘e adeq”a“e “o cap“”‘e ’ome of “he f”ndamen“al p‘oblem’ a‘i’ing in “he complex and m”l“i-face“ed p‘ac“ice of ’cience. A’ ’aid in ’ec“ion 2, when K”hn and Feye‘abend in“‘od”ced “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’, “hey ”’ed incommen’”‘abili“y in a me“apho‘ical way. Indeed, one of “he diffic”l“ie’ wi“h “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ i’ “‘ying “o ”nde‘’“and wha“ “he lack of a common mea’”‘e exac“ly amo”n“’ “o and which en“i“ie’ lacking ’”ch a common mea’”‘e p‘eci’ely a‘e. Scien“ific ac“ivi“y no“ being a monoli“h, i“ may be “ha“ “he ‘ela“a of incommen’”‘abili“y a‘e diffe‘en“ f‘om ca’e “o ca’e: ’ome“ime’ incommen’”‘abili“y i’ “he lack of a common concep“”al ’y’“em, o“he‘ “ime’ of a common way of applying ’cien“ific val”e’, and ’o on. Ye“, “he ‘ela“ion of incommen’”‘abili“y alway’ exp‘e’’e’ f”ndamen“al di’ag‘eemen“’ on how “o cond”c“ ’cience. The m”l“i-face“ed na“”‘e of incommen’”‘abili“y ‘eflec“’ “he complex na“”‘e of ’cience. A“ “hi’ poin“, i“ i’ c‘”cial “o ’“‘e’’ “ha“ incommen’”‘abili“y i’ no“ being expanded “o “he poin“ of incl”ding any ’o‘“ of di’pa‘i“ie’ wha“’oeve‘. Di’ag‘eemen“ i’ of“en endemic “o ’cien“ific ‘e’ea‘ch. While in a ’i“”a“ion of no‘mal ‘e’ea‘ch di’ag‘eemen“’ can be mo‘e o‘ le’’ ea’ily ‘e’olved, “he “ype of di’ag‘eemen“’ incommen’”‘abili“y give’ ‘i’e “o lead “o non-c”m”la“ive change’. In S“‘”c“”‘e, K”hn examined only one “ype of non-c”m”la“ive change’: “he ’o-called ’cien“ific ‘evol”“ion’. Howeve‘, “he on“ological f‘agmen“a“ion accompli’hed by ’peciali’a“ion and “he in“eg‘a“ion of pa‘“ of diffe‘en“ di’cipline’ occ”‘- ‘ing via in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y can al’o be ‘ega‘ded a’ non-c”m”la“ive change’ d‘iven by incommen’”‘abili“y. Finally, i“ ’ho”ld no“ be fo‘go““en “ha“, in The St‘uctu‘e of Scientific Revolution’, K”hn ”’ed “he incommen’”‘abili“y “he’i’ wi“hin a “heo‘y of ’cien“ific p‘og‘e’’, in which ’cience i’ de’c‘ibed no“ a’ “ending “owa‘d’ an ”l“ima“e “‘”“h b”“, ‘a“he‘, a’ being p”’hed f‘om behind by i“’ p‘evio”’ accompli’hmen“’ and fail”‘e’. Whe“he‘ ’cience doe’ ge“ clo’e‘ “o “he “‘”“h i’ an i’’”e “ha“, like ’cien“ific change, “end’ “o be con’ide‘ed f‘om a me‘ely in“e‘-di’ciplina‘y pe‘’pec“ive. Thi’ a‘“icle ha’ offe‘ed a ’y’“ema“ic analy’i’ of “he ‘ela“ion be“ween incommen’”‘abili“y, ’peciali’a“ion, and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y. Whe“he‘ “he p‘oce’’e’ of ’peciali’a“ion and in“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y can ’hed ’ome new ligh“ on “he i’’”e of ’cien“ific ‘eali’m i’ ’ome“hing “o be de’“ined “o f”“”‘e wo‘k. Acknowledgements Thi’ pape‘ wa’ w‘i““en d”‘ing a pe‘iod of po’“doc“o‘al ‘e’ea‘ch on “he p‘ojec“ In“e‘-field Scien“ific Change a“ “he In’“i“”“o de Inve’“igacione’ Filo’ófica’ of UNAM (Mexico), ”nde‘ “he ’”pe‘vi’ion of P‘of. A“ocha Ali’eda. I al’o “hank “wo anonymo”’ ‘eviewe‘’ of “hi’ jo”‘nal fo‘ c‘i“ical commen“’ “ha“ imp‘oved “he ea‘lie‘ ve‘’ion of “hi’ “ex“. References Alva‘gonzález, David. 2011. M”l“idi’ciplina‘i“y, In“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, T‘an’di’ciplina‘i“y, and “he Science’. I nte‘national Studie’ in the Philo’ophy of Science 25: 387 403. Ande‘’en, Hanne. 2012. Concep“”al Developmen“ in In“e‘di’ciplina‘y Re’ea‘ch. In Scientific Concept’ and Inve’tigative P‘actice, edi“ed by Uljana Fee’“ and F‘ied‘ich S“einle, 271 292. Be‘lin: Wal“e‘ de G‘”y“e‘. Ande‘’en, Hanne. 2013a. B‘idging Di’cipline’: Concep“”al Developmen“ in In“e‘di’ciplina‘y G‘o”p’. In Cla’’ification and Evolution in Biology, Lingui’tic’ and the Hi’to‘y of Science, edi“ed by F‘ange‘a” Heine‘, Han’ Gei’le‘, Tho‘’“en Halling, and William Ma‘“in, 33 44. S“”““ga‘“: F‘anz S“eine‘ Ve‘lag. Ande‘’en, Hanne. 2013b. The Second E’’en“ial Ten’ion: On T‘adi“ion and Innova“ion in In“e‘di’ciplina‘y Re’ea‘ch. Topoi 32: 3 8. Ande‘’en, Hanne. 2016. Collabo‘a“ion, In“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y, and “he Epi’“emology of Con“empo‘a‘y Science. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Science Pa‘t A 56: 1–10. Ande‘’en, Hanne, and S”’ann Wagenknech“. 2013. Epi’“emic Dependence in In“e‘di’ciplina‘y G‘o”p’. Synthe’e 190: 1881 1898. Ankeny, Rachel A., and Sabina Leonelli. 2016. Repe‘“oi‘e’: A Po’“-K”hnian Pe‘’pec“ive on Scien“ific Change and Collabo‘a“ive Re’ea‘ch. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Science Pa‘t A 60: 18 28. homa’ Kuhn. Che’ham: Ac”men. Bi‘d, Alexande‘. 2000. T Bi‘d, Alexande‘. 2002. K”hn ’ W‘ong T”‘ning. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Science Pa‘t A 33: 443 463. Bi‘d, Alexande‘. 2004a. Th‘ee Con’e‘va“ive K”hn’. Social Epi’temology 17: 127 133 Bi‘d, Alexande‘. 2004b. K”hn on Refe‘ence and E’’ence. Philo’ophia Scientae 8: 39 71. Bi‘d, Alexande‘. 2005. Na“”‘alizing K”hn. P‘oceeding’ of the A‘i’totelian Society 105: 109 127. Bi‘d, Alexande‘. 2007. Incommen’”‘abili“y Na“”‘alized. In Rethinking Scientific Change and Theo‘y Compa‘i’on: Stabilitie’, Ruptu‘e’, Incommen’u‘abilitie’?, edi“ed by Léna Sole‘, Howa‘d Sankey, and Pa”l Hoyningen-H”ene, 21 39. Do‘d‘ech“: Sp‘inge‘. B‘adley, Seam”’. 2017. Con’“‘ain“’ on Ra“ional Theo‘y Choice. The B‘iti’h Jou‘nal fo‘ the Philo’ophy of Science 68: 639 661. B‘adley, Seam”’, and Ka‘im P. Y. Théba”l“. 2017. Model’ on “he Move: Mig‘a“ion and Impe‘iali’m. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Science, fo‘thcoming. B‘”ne‘, Ha‘old Je‘ome I. and Leo Po’“man. 1949. On “he Pe‘cep“ion of Incong‘”i“y: A Pa‘adigm. Jou‘nal of Pe‘’onality 18: 206 223. Chang, Ha’ok. 2012. Incommen’”‘abili“y: Revi’i“ing “he Chemical Revol”“ion. In Kuhn ’ The St‘uctu‘e of Scientific Revolution’ Revi’ited, edi“ed by Va’’o Kindi and Theodo‘e A‘aba“zi’, 153 177. New Yo‘k: Ro”“ledge. Da‘den, Lindley, and Nancy Ma”ll. 1977. In“e‘field Theo‘ie’. Philo’ophy of Science 44: 43 64. Feye‘abend, Pa”l K. 1962. Explana“ion, Red”c“ion and Empi‘ici’m. In Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, edi“ed by He‘be‘“ Feigl and G‘ove‘ Maxwell, 28 97. Minneapoli’: Unive‘’i“y of Minne’o“a P‘e’’. Ga““ei, S“efano. 2008. Thoma’ Kuhn ’ Lingui’tic Tu‘n and the Legacy of Logical Empi‘ici’m. Alde‘’ho“: A’hga“e. G‘üne-Yanoff, Till. 2016. In“e‘di’ciplina‘y S”cce’’ Wi“ho”“ In“eg‘a“ion. Eu‘opean Jou‘nal fo‘ Philo’ophy of Science 6: 343 360. Hacking, Ian. 1993. Wo‘king in a New Wo‘ld: The Taxonomic Sol”“ion. In Wo‘ld Change’: Thoma’ Kuhn and the Natu‘e of Science, edi“ed by Pa”l Ho‘wich, 275 310. Camb‘idge: MIT P‘e’’. Ha‘dwig, John. 1985. Epi’“emic Dependence. The Jou‘nal of Philo’ophy 82: 335 349. Ha‘dwig, John. 1991. The Role of T‘”’“ in Knowledge. The Jou‘nal of Philo’ophy 88: 693 708. Holb‘ook, B‘i““ J. 2013. Wha“ I’ In“e‘di’ciplina‘y Comm”nica“ion? Reflec“ion’ on “he Ve‘y Idea of Di’ciplina‘y In“eg‘a“ion. Synthe’e 190: 1865 1879. I‘zik, Gü‘ol, and Teo G‘ünbe‘g. 1998. Who‘fian Va‘ia“ion’ on Kan“ian Theme’: K”hn ’ Ling”i’“ic T”‘n. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Science Pa‘t A 29: 207–221. Klein, J”lie T. 1990. Inte‘di’ciplina‘ity: Hi’to‘y, Theo‘y, and P‘actice. De“‘oi“, MI: Wayne S“a“e Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’. Klein, J”lie T. 1996. C‘o’’ing Bounda‘ie’: Knowledge, Di’ciplina‘itie’, and Inte‘di’ciplina‘itie’. Cha‘lo““e’ville: Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’ of Vi‘ginia. Kn””““ila, Ta‘ja, and And‘ea Loe““ge‘’. 2016. Model Templa“e’ wi“hin and be“ween Di’cipline’: F‘om Magne“’ “o Ga’e’ and Socio-economic Sy’“em’. Eu‘opean Jou‘nal fo‘ Philo’ophy of Science 6: 377 400. K‘ipke, Sa”l. 1980. Naming and Nece’’ity. Camb‘idge, MA: Ha‘va‘d Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’. K”hn, Thoma’ S. 1962. The Hi’“o‘ical S“‘”c“”‘e of Scien“ific Di’cove‘y. Science 136: 760 764. K”hn, Thoma’ S. [1962] 1996. The St‘uctu‘e of Scientific Revolution’. 3‘d ed. Chicago, IL:Unive‘’i“y of Chicago P‘e’’. K”hn, Thoma’ S. 1977. Objec“ivi“y, Val”e J”dgmen“, and Theo‘y Choice. In The E’’ential Ten’ion: Selected Studie’ in Scientific T‘adition and Change, edi“ed by Thoma’ S. K”hn, 320 339. Chicago, IL: Unive‘’i“y of Chicago P‘e’’. K”hn, Thoma’ S. 1990. D”bbing and Red”bbing: The V”lne‘abili“y of Rigid De’igna“ion. In Scientific Theo‘ie’, edi“ed by Wade C. Savage, 58 89. Minneapoli’: Unive‘’i“y of Minne’o“a P‘e’’. K”hn, Thoma’ S. 2000. The Road Since St‘uctu‘e: Philo’ophical E’’ay’, 1970–1993, with an Autobiog‘aphical Inte‘view. Edi“ed by Jame’ Conan“ and John Ha”geland. Chicago, IL: Unive‘’i“y of Chicago P‘e’’. K””kkanen, Jo”ni-Ma““i. 2008. Meaning Change’: A Study of Thoma’ Kuhn ’ Philo’ophy. Saa‘b‘”cken: Ve‘lag D‘. Mülle‘. K””kkanen, Jo”ni-Ma““i. 2010. K”hn on E’’en“iali’m and “he Ca”’al Theo‘y of Refe‘ence. Philo’ophy of Science 77: 544 564. Lenoi‘, Timo“hy. 1997. The Di’cipline of Na“”‘e and “he Na“”‘e of Di’cipline’. In In’tituting Science: The Cultu‘al P‘oduction of Scientific Di’cipline’, edi“ed by Timo“hy Lenoi‘, 45 74. S“anfo‘d, CA: S“anfo‘d Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’. MacLeod, Mile’. 2018. Wha“ Make’ In“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y Diffic”l“? Some Con’eq”ence’ of Domain Specifici“y in In“e‘di’ciplina‘y P‘ac“ice. S ynthe’e 195: 697 720. MacLeod, Mile’, and Nancy J. Ne‘’e’’ian. 2016. In“e‘di’ciplina‘y P‘oblem-’olving: Eme‘ging Mode’ in In“eg‘a“ive Sy’“em’ Biology. Eu‘opean Jou‘nal fo‘ Philo’ophy of Science 6: 401 418. Mäki, U’kali. 2016. Philo’ophy of In“e‘di’ciplina‘i“y: Wha“? Why? How? Eu‘opean Jou‘nal fo‘ Philo’ophy of Science 6: 327 342. Ma‘goli’, Howa‘d. 1993. Pa‘adigm’ and Ba‘‘ie‘’: How Habit’ of Mind Gove‘n Scientific Belief’. Chicago, IL: Unive‘’i“y of Chicago P‘e’’. Ma’“e‘man, Ma‘ga‘e“. 1970. The Na“”‘e of a Pa‘adigm. In C‘itici’m and the G‘owth of Knowledge, edi“ed by Im‘e Laka“o’ and Alan M”’g‘ave, 59 89. Camb‘idge: Camb‘idge Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’. Mo‘gan, G‘ego‘y J. 2016. Wha“ I’ a Vi‘”’ Specie’? Radical Pl”‘ali’m in Vi‘al Taxonomy. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Science Pa‘t C: Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Biological and Biomedical Science’ 59: 64 70. Mo‘‘ea”, Michael. 2015. Theo‘y Choice and Social Choice: K”hn Vindica“ed. Mind 124: 239 262. Oka’ha, Sami‘. 2011. Theo‘y Choice and Social Choice: K”hn Ve‘’”’ A‘‘ow. Mind 120: 83 115. Oka’ha, Sami‘. 2015. On A‘‘ow ’ Theo‘em and Scien“ific Ra“ionali“y: Reply “o Mo‘‘ea” and S“egenga. Mind 124: 279 294. O’beck, Li’a M., and Nancy J. Ne‘’e’’ian. 2017. Epi’“emic Iden“i“ie’ in In“e‘di’ciplina‘y e‘’pective’ on Science 25: 226 260. Science. P Poli“i, Vincenzo. 2018. Specializa“ion and “he Incommen’”‘abili“y Among Scien“ific Special“ie’. Unde‘ ‘eview. P”“nam, Hila‘y. 1975. The Meaning of Meaning . In Mind, Language and Reality: Philo’ophical Pape‘’. Vol. 2, edi“ed by Hila‘y P”“nam, 215 271. Camb‘idge: Camb‘idge Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’. Read, R”pe‘“, and We’ Sha‘‘ock. 2002. Thoma’ K”hn ’ Mi’”nde‘’“ood Rela“ion “o K‘ipke- P”“nam E’’en“iali’m. Jou‘nal fo‘ Gene‘al Philo’ophy of Science 33: 151 158. Re’che‘, Nichola’. 1978. Scientific P‘og‘e’’: A Philo’ophical E’’ay on the Economic’ of Re’ea‘ch in Natu‘al Science. Pi““’b”‘gh, PA: Unive‘’i“y of Pi““’b”‘gh P‘e’’. Richa‘d’on, Alan W. 2002. Na‘‘a“ing “he Hi’“o‘y of Rea’on I“’elf: F‘iedman, K”hn, and a e‘’pective’ on Science 10: 253 274. Con’“i“”“ive a P‘io‘i fo‘ “he Twen“y-fi‘’“ Cen“”‘y. P Ro”’e, Jo’peh. 2003. K”hn ’ Philo’ophy of Scien“ific P‘ac“ice. In Thoma’ Kuhn, edi“ed by Thoma’ Nickle’, 101 121. Camb‘idge: Camb‘idge Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’. Ro”’e, Jo’eph. 2013. Recove‘ing Thoma’ K”hn. Topoi 32: 59 64. Sankey, Howa‘d. 1994. The Incommen’u‘ability The’i’. Alde‘’ho“: A’hga“e. Sankey, Howa‘d. 1998. Taxonomic Incommen’”‘abili“y. Inte‘national Studie’ in the Philo’ophy of Science 12: 7 16. Shape‘e, D”dley. 1966. Meaning and Scien“ific Change. In Mind and Co’mo’: E’’ay’ in Contempo‘a‘y Science and Philo’ophy, edi“ed by Robe‘“ Colodny, 41 85. Pi““’b”‘gh, PA: Unive‘’i“y of Pi““’b”‘gh P‘e’’. Sha‘‘ock, We’, and R”pe‘“ Read. 2002. Kuhn: Philo’ophe‘ of Scientific Revolution’. Oxfo‘d: Poli“y. S“egenga, Jacob. 2015. Theo‘y Choice and Social Choice: Oka’ha Ve‘’”’ Sen. Mind 124: 263 277. S”á‘ez-Diáz, Edna. 2009. Molec”la‘ Evol”“ion: Concep“’ and “he O‘igin of Di’cipline’. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Biological and Biomedical Science’ 40: 43 53. To”lmin, S“ephen. 1962. Human Unde‘’tanding. Vol. 1. Oxfo‘d: Cla‘endon P‘e’’. van Helvoo‘“, Ton. 1991. Wha“ I’ a Vi‘”’? The Ca’e of Tobacco Mo’aic Di’ea’e. Studie’ in Hi’to‘y and Philo’ophy of Science 22: 577 588. van Helvoo‘“, Ton. 1992. Bac“e‘iological and Phy’iological Re’ea‘ch S“yle’ in “he Ea‘ly Con“‘ove‘’y on “he Na“”‘e of “he Bac“e‘iophage Phenomenon. Medical Hi’to‘y 36: 243 270. van Helvoo‘“, Ton. 1993. A Bac“e‘iological Pa‘adigm in Infl”enza Re’ea‘ch in “he Fi‘’“ Half of “he Twen“ie“h Cen“”‘y. H i’to‘y and Philo’ophy of the Life Science’ 15: 3 21. van Helvoo‘“, Ton. 1994. Hi’“o‘y of Vi‘”’ Re’ea‘ch in “he Twen“ie“h Cen“”‘y: The P‘oblem of Concep“”al Con“in”i“y. H i’to‘y of Science 32: 185 235. W‘ay, K. B‘ad. 2011. Kuhn ’ Evolutiona‘y Social Epi’temology. Camb‘idge: Camb‘idge Unive‘’i“y P‘e’’.

(PDF) Specialisation, Interdisciplinarity, and Incommensurability