Thank you for your good intention to make me aware that transdisciplinarity may increase the risk of diluting any research. It seems to me that there is a confusion between interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. While the interdisciplinarity is generating an excess of new disciplines, transdisciplinarity is doing the reverse process: compacting both disciplines and interdisciplines into a more general tableau/ image that may suggest new directions of research and, of course, new results. For example, my End Means Methodology concentrates and make more clear the continuum politics-economics-ethics (3 in 1!). A lot of time could be saved and an increasing amount of understanding results from teaching this continuum at pre-universitary level. Anyone interested by particular aspects of teaching and learning this transdisciplinary methodology is invited to enter dialog with arguments and counterarguments. I hope this article could be of some help in explaining this new vision.

http://www.liviudrugus.ro/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=51heEJ9lMzk%3d&tabid=57&mid=419&language=en-US

At a first reading it seemed to me that you refer to false disciplinary boundaries (and I was happy for some seconds), but you wrote about a ”false cut” of the so good and necessary disciplinary boundaries (which made me angry...). Discussion on disciplinary boundaries is quite similar with that referring to political/ state boundaries... with its ideological implications: some love EU, some hate it... That is why I do consider so a strange thing to speak about ”social sciences”. You are right to consider a dilution of scientific criteria by applying a transdisciplinary (TD) vision on natural disciplines, but the real problem is with ”scientific criteria” not with TD... ”Scientifically” disciplines are still in big debate on big truths. I am not qualified to stand for a vision or another but I heard/ read about continuing the ”scientific” dialog of heliocentric and geocentric visions/ ideologies, both of them mathematically proved (e.g. there is a book on this debate, named ”Science as a pity”). In this respect I agree Roger Penrose that said that rules could be often a substitute to understanding, but this substitution never could be a full one. As Frieder Wolf put it, it comes out that the 1959 historical debate on C.P. Snow book ”The two cultures and the scientific revolution” is to be continued. At http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=231338 there is a big ”quarrel” on which discipline is more ”scientific” than other... Some said that ”natural sciences seek to darwinize culture, and social sciences use postmodernist thinking to turn natural sciences into a dogmatic belief system devoid of objectivity”. To get a solution, I suggested to give up the confusing word ”science” (which presuppose strong disciplinary boundaries) and to replace it with more general one: ”knowledge”, just to be able to travel without visa from a discipline to another, and to be able to make new visions and discoveries by getting up at higher levels of reality (above, across and between former disciplines territories...) and to add more info to the present level of knowledge. To conclude, TD is not killing and destroying basic disciplines, but invites to reflection on how we can add more relevant and useful knowledge. Of course, curriculum is a bit affected by that, and until now I met only people fearing their discipline will have less hours for teaching to students... and probably less money and less ”social” position. Anyway, I still hope to have answers at my question (with inescapable personal positions and beliefs...).

I agree with you but the terminology will be suitable if we use META DISCIPLINE not TRANSDICIPLINE