The exemplary analysis of the car shows that the method of ontogenetic thinking is not particularly intellectually challenging. Nevertheless, it differs from the usual approach in science. Why?
Scientific disciplines usually use primarily one of the three perspectives, sometimes two, and rarely all three, but never equally and fully integrated. Biology is a prime example of a scientific discipline that for a long time was limited to collecting and classifying observations. The theory of evolution added the historical perspective, and molecular biology added the ontological level of observation, but compared to physics and chemistry, biology still has a theoretical deficit. In physics and chemistry, the empirical-phenomenological and the theoretical-ontological approaches are recognized as equally valid and are linked by a fruitful interplay of theory and experiment, while the historical perspective plays no role at all, except in cosmology. Natural history is not a recognized academic subject and is only discussed for the lay public in natural history museums and popular science books. History, on the other hand, is completely focused on the temporal perspective and constantly collects facts about the history of human societies, while the possibility of forming historical theories is largely denied by today's representatives of the subject. Social sciences such as sociology, political science, and economics, on the other hand, largely ignore the historical perspective.
Since the empirical-phenomenological, theoretical-ontological and historical-genealogical perspectives are not equally considered and interlinked in today's sciences, their explanations sometimes fall short and leave gaps. We are convinced that the method of ontogenetic thinking is a suitable tool for deriving hypotheses on how phenomena that were previously difficult or impossible to explain come about.
Comments powered by CComment