Unification and integration: different yet the same?

ccording to the Oxford dictionary unification is ''the process of being united or made into a whole'', while integration is ''the action or process of integrating''. Integrating is further defined as ''combining (one thing) with another to form a whole''. Although there are different frameworks to describe how and to what extent unification could work (Kitcher 1981, 1989, Weber 1999, Schurz 1999, Mäki 2001), it seems as if unification and integration have the same meaning. However, a filtered search for unification in the category ''Science and Technology'' on the web of science resulted in 16 233 hits, while the results for integration (with the exclusion of mathematical integration) counted no less than 74 263 hits. If unification and integration mean the same, then why the huge difference? Are unification and integration interchangeable or is there a difference in application and evaluation? In the first divergent part of the paper I want to explore the differences between unification and integration. One possible distinction, made by Törnblom et al. (2007) is that the process or the activity is described as ''integration'' while the result or the product of this activity is described as ''unification''. Derksen (2005) argues against unification and integration, since integration of biological and social sciences is defended under the banner of the unity of science, which is an illusion. Integration, unification, disintegration and disunification are often used in the same context. If the goal of unification is reached through integration, as Törnblom claims, this would explain why scientists often use the terms interchangeably. However, by means of examples and case studies from different domains of science, I want to provide some guidelines to make the difference between the unification and integration. First, I want to suggest that integration can be a goal in itself. Mitchell (2006) defends an integrative pluralism in biology, without the ultimate goal of a unified theory. She claims that ''because of the diversity in biology, imposing unity is not a good strategy, but in order to explain concrete phenomena, biologists integrate the multiple accounts of explanation'' (2007, p.76). This means that integration is not only an activity, but also a goal in itself. The reverse question will also be tackled. Is it possible to unify without the use of integration? Or is integration a necessary intermediate step to achieve a unification. Second, the claim will be made that there is a difference in explananda in unification and integration. Using Kleinhans' study of river patterns I will show that to unify, at least two explananda are required. In order to integrate, only one explanandum is needed. To provide a fulfilling explanation about why river patterns show the pattern they have, different methodologies are used. There is a reduction to physics, stratigraphic data are collected, the stratification patterns are ordered and explained by means of radiometry, fossil studies, biogenical studies, tectonics, and a whole lot of other scientific theories. Although Kleinhans himself calls this a unificatory approach to the study of river patterns, I will suggest that the use of different explanantia to explain one explanandum is integration. Unification is the opposite. In order to explain multiple explananda only one explanans is used. Besides the number of explanantia and explananda there is also a difference on a structural level. By examples I will show that there is a difference in level of the unifier and the integrator and the unified and integrated objects. The unification itself is situated at the level of the explananda, they are unified. The structure of integration is conversed. The integration is situated at the level of the explanantia, they are integrated to provide an explanation. This will be further clarified with examples. A third suggestion is the idea that there is a difference between unification and integration on the methodological level. The difference between inter-field theories and mere interconnectedness will be used to show a discrepancy between unification and integration. Grantham suggests that cell biology cannot be captured in purely biochemical terms, but that both theories are nevertheless strongly connected. Such an interconnectedness is stronger if the connections between the two fields are more numerous and if the connection starts transforming the neighboring field. His case study is about the place of fossil records in phylogeny reconstruction of placental mammals. The dating of the first appearing of placental mammals shows a difference of 45 million years in neontology and paleobiology. Grantham suggests that if the two fields involved in the discussion become interconnected, and thus more unified, the problem will be solved. However, I want to make a difference between methodological integration and methodological unification. If methods can be developed to asses a hypothesis in light of data of two fields, this should be called integration. If the same method is used in two fields, this is unity of method. By comparing different explanatory structures, I hope to show that a difference between unification and integration can be useful to clarify what scientists are actually doing when explaining. In the second convergent part of the paper I want to explore whether unification and integration are really two different concepts. Although voices are rising to oppose the search for unification or integration (Derksen 2005, Mitchell 2006, Van Der Steen 1993), the search for connectedness in our knowledge is still going on. This resistance can originate from the unsuccessfulness of unifying biology and the social science or from a radical pragmatism that all the sciences are merely tools to interact with reality. Midgley argues that a variety of ways of thinking is necessary, since that variety is the variety or our needs (2000, p.71). But what if a coherent, even unified knowledge is one of our human needs? Starting from this second question, I will explore whether there is an underlying common need or goal of a more broader connectedness present in both unification and integration. My claim is that unification and integration have a similar goal, but they take a different stance on autonomy of the sciences. Are unification and integration two distinct methods, or are they just two paths to reach the same purpose to connect everything with everything?

Jaar van publicatie:2011