Styles of Scientific Thinking in Geography , No: 15 - 06/2019
Başlık
:
Styles of Scientific Thinking in Geography
Yazar(lar)
:
Erdem BEKAROĞLU; Ömer Faik ANLI
Title
:
Styles of Scientific Thinking in Geography / Coğrafyada Bilimsel Düşünme Stilleri
Anahtar Kelimeler
:
Bilimsel Düşünme Stilleri, Coğrafya, A. Crombie, İki Kültür
Key Words
:
Styles of Scientific Thinking, Geography, A. Crombie, The two cultures
Özet 1 / Abstract 1
:
This study, which focuses on the styles of scientific thinking in the geographical praxis, claims that geography has been characterized historically by three different styles of scientific thinking. The styles that are created by revisiting geographical thinking in the light of the modern world-system analysis are called holistic one-cultural, systematic-empirical, and systematic-two cultural, respectively and provide the framework in which the Crombiean scientific thinking styles (Crombie, 1994) can be embedded and understood. It was concluded in this attempt at constructing geographical styles with an abductive reasoning that the Crombiean modernist macro-scale framework could only be meaningful and enhanced by a discipline-specific reconstruction of the styles exhibited by singular sciences historically.
Özet 2 / Abstract 2
:
Coğrafi pratiğin tarihsel olarak sergilediği bilimsel düşünce stillerine odaklanan bu çalışma, coğrafyanın tarihsel olarak üç farklı bilimsel düşünce stiliyle karakterize olduğunu öne sürmektedir. Coğrafi düşünün modern dünya-sistemi analizi ışığında yeniden okunması neticesinde oluşturulan stiller sırasıyla holistik-tek kültürcü, sistematik-empirik, sistematik-iki kültürcü olarak adlandırılmakta ve Crombieci bilimsel düşünce stillerinin (Crombie, 1994) içerisine yerleştirilip anlam bulabileceği çerçeveyi sağlamaktadır. Coğrafi stillerin abdaktif bir uslamlamayla inşa edildiği bu girişimde, Crombieci modernist makrocu çerçevenin, ancak tekil bilimlerin tarihsel olarak sergiledikleri stillerin disipliner-spesifik bir rekonstrüksiyonuyla anlam bulabileceği ve geliştirilebileceği sonucuna varılmıştır.
Extended Summary
:
In his magnum opus “Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition” published in 1994, A. C. Crombie distinguishes six styles, which have made their mark on the western image of science since antiquity to the 18th century (Kwa, 2011). These trans-disciplinary and trans-paradigmatic styles of thinking focus on the ways of reasoning that mostly crosscut fields of knowledge in terms of history of science. These styles of scientific thinking are postulational, experimental, hypothetical, taxonomic, statistical, and historical (Crombie, 1994). Styles of thinking in the tradition of geography that go back to antiquity do not have a composition that can be directly understood by Crombie’s abstractions. This does not mean that the geographical tradition does not have a style but rather it points to a challenge in the nature of Crombie’s attempt. This article aims to investigate the styles of thinking in geography. Our argument is that the macro-scale styles of thinking in geographical thought cannot be understood by directly using the Crombiean framework as such an attempt necessitates a discipline-specific approach. It is argued that the abstraction we put forth in this study describes the styles of thinking in modern and contemporary geography, albeit diachronously: geographical thought has its own styles of thinking originated from its own historicity while it is still influenced by the Crombiean system at the theoretical level. It is self-evident when the Crombiean system and the evolution of the external history of geography were taken together that the discipline had different styles of thinking especially in the framework of its institutional history. At this stage, we propose to examine the styles of geographical thinking in three macro scale groups: Holistic-one cultural style is founded on the ontological premise on which it has built itself within the modern knowledge structures that were institutionalised in the 19th century. In the holistic one cultural style, which draws its source from the framework “theorised” by the 19th century German geography, observation precedes theory, subjective observation is dominant yet the objectivity problem created by this dominance is not problematized. An inductive reasoning reigns in this practice in which facts and events in space are described by naïve observation and the data gathered from observation is not generalised (or results obtained from one spatial unit are not used in another). Yet, reaching a general composition from specific spatial units is not an ultimate aim for this practice; it is an unnecessary endeavour trying to reach a general norm/pattern since the earth consists of parts/regions that are different from each other. The most important feature of systematic-empirical style, which developed simultaneously with the holistic-one cultural style, is that it is in essence an explorative practice. This style is characterized by locational information produced in the sub-branches of physical and human geography (geomorphology, climatology, urban geography, economic geography etc.) Most of these studies lack an evident theoretical background, while some implicitly employ a theoretical framework. This practice methodologically depends on naïve empiricism (observation) to a large extent; and is semi-positivist in terms of dependence on data, especially where secondary data are used. Systematic empirical style, although having a descriptive tendency in general, is sometimes explanatory. In this context, idiographic studies dominate this practice. Studies in systematic-empirical style that completely depend on inductive reasoning have a semi-positivist background in terms of their dependence on facts/data. The systematic-two cultural style emerged as a form of knowing with the ontological and epistemological fragmentation of the holistic structure of geography during and after the dazzling changes of the thirty-year period after the Second World War (Bekaroğlu, 2016). The style, in fact, refers to the adaptation of the discipline to modern knowledge structures. The systematic-two cultural style refers to the renunciation of geography’s claim to understand the human-environment duality in its totality. The style emerged because of the process by which geographical practice, situated at the intersection point of two cultural knowledge structures during a long period of its history, reorganised its style of knowing without problematizing its ontological status. In this respect, the social is explained by social processes and the physical, by physical processes. This practice is therefore the opposite of the "holistic-one cultural" style. The styles that characterize geographical practice have a structure that is both historical, spatial and time-transgressive. Depending on the spatiality of the intellectual knowledge centers, produced knowledge originate from a specific place at a certain time, and then spread. Both holistic-one cultural and systematic-empirical geographical styles have come to life in the Old World (especially Asia Minor and Europe) and have spread over time to other parts of the world, including the New World, whereas, the systematic-two cultural style that characterizes contemporary geographical practices first developed in the Anglo-American World and then spread to different geographies of the world at different times. Accordingly, geographical practices in different geographies practiced different geographical styles at different times.
Pdf
:
Styles of Scientific Thinking in Geography Tam Metin / Full Text
No: 15 - 06/2019 - Tüm Makaleler
Makale Arama
Sayı
Anahtar Kelime, Yazar(lar)
Künye
Sahibi / Owner
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
Editör ve Sorumlu Yazı İşleri Müdürü / Editor
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
Editör Yardımcıları / Assistant Editors
Emrah AKDENİZ
Ömer Faik ANLI
Yayın Kurulu / Editorial Board
Ahmet İNAM
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Erdal CENGİZ
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Kurtuluş DİNÇER
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Ertuğrul Rufayi TURAN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Sedat YAZICI
(Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi)
Emrah Akdeniz
(Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi)
Senem KURTAR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Seyit COŞKUN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Ömer Faik ANLI
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Danışma Kurulu / Board of Consultants
A.Kadir ÇÜÇEN
(Uludağ Üniversitesi)
Ayhan SOL
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Barış PARKAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Besim DELLALOĞLU
(Sakarya Üniversitesi)
Cemal GÜZEL
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Çetin TÜRKYILMAZ
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Elif ÇIRAKMAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Erdinç SAYAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Güçlü ATEŞOĞLU
(Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi)
Gülay ÖZDEMİR AKGÜNDÜZ
(Bingöl Üniversitesi)
Güzin YAMANER
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Halil TURAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Harun TEPE
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Hüseyin Gazi TOPDEMİR
(Muğla Üniversitesi)
Kubilay AYSEVENER
(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
M.Cihan CAMCI
(Akdeniz Üniversitesi)
Melih BAŞARAN
(Galatasaray Üniversitesi)
Nazile KALAYCI
(Hacettepe Üniversitesi)
Nilgün TOKER KILINÇ
(Ege Üniversitesi)
Remzi DEMİR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
R. Levent AYSEVER
(Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi)
Serpil SANCAR
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Yasin CEYLAN
(Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi)
Zeynep DİREK
(Koç Üniversitesi)
M. Murat YÜCEŞAHİN
(Ankara Üniversitesi)
Vefa Saygın ÖĞÜTLE
(Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi)
Sekreterya / Secretariat
Zeynep İrem ÖZATAY
Yazışma Adresi / Mailing Address
Ankara Üniversitesi,
Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü, Ankara

Posseible Düşünme Dergisi hakemli bir dergidir. Yılda iki sayı olmak üzere elektronik ortamda yayınlanır. Posseible Düşünme Dergisi 2016 yılından itibaren The Philosopher's Index tarafından dizinlenmektedir.
ISSN: 2147-1622
editor@posseible.com
www.posseible.com
Tel: 0 312 310 3280 / 1232 – 1233
Posseible Düşünme Dergisi - editor@posseible.com
İşbu sitenin tüm hakları saklıdır. Site içerisindeki dökümanlar izinsiz ve kaynak gösterilmeden kullanılamaz. © 2012
Web Tasarım