![biting the bullet philosophy biting the bullet philosophy](https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/11/boattail-1.jpg)
The unity in question does rely on using one fundamental notion (such as “cognition” or “mental representation”) or one methodology but on assuming a common set of hypotheses about cognitive mechanisms, described on multiple levels of organization by multiple disciplines. The hypothesis is that despite diversity – or rather thanks to diversity – interdisciplinary research fields can be unified, even if there is some proclivity towards disintegration or some disciplines absorb others. But to really dispel the doubt against interdisciplinary research, one needs to answer the question what makes such conglomerates as cognitive science actually unified. However, the existence of interdisciplinary collaboration means that there are real connections between disciplines and that their problems are related. This kind of doubt can be articulated with regard to any interdisciplinary research field. One can ask a fundamental question whether anything unifies the field or whether it is not just a hotchpotch of heterogeneous research. Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary research field, in which methods, tools, and concepts from other disciplines are used. The objective of the project “Cognitive Science in Search of Unity” is to develop an account of unification and integration in cognitive science. The mechanistic framework can, in principle, preserve the idea of computational equivalence even between two different enough kinds of physical systems, say, electrical and hydraulic ones. We aim to show that the mechanist need not pay this price. But Dewhurst seems to be too quick to pay the price of giving up the notion of computational equivalence.
![biting the bullet philosophy biting the bullet philosophy](https://www.eajohansson.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/brucelee-1.jpg)
He rejects the idea of appealing to semantic properties for determining the computational identity of a physical system. A welcome exception is Dewhurst's () recent analysis of computational individuation under the mechanistic framework. Despite the pervasiveness of this phenomenon in physical computational systems, it has been discussed in the philosophical literature only indirectly, mostly with reference to the debate over realism about physical computation and computationalism. A paradigmatic example is a conventional electrical AND-gate that is often said to compute conjunction, but it can just as well be used to compute disjunction. We recommend the legitimacy framework to be used as a heuristic for reflexive governance, tool for explicating the conditionality of ‘radicality’ in transition management, and guide for designing accountability governance structures.Is the mathematical function being computed by a given physical system determined by the system's dynamics? This question is at the heart of the indeterminacy of computation phenomenon (Fresco et al. We discuss the emphasis on liberal democratic norms, the fuzziness of practices of participation and the closing down of policy options. This framework guides a comparative analysis of six European cities, who employ transition management practices for developing decarbonisation roadmaps towards 2050. Contributing to these debates, this article develops a legitimacy framework for understanding how transition management practices can be legitimised within liberal democratic structures, while safeguarding their transformative potential, or, ‘radical core’, while navigating innovation capture.
![biting the bullet philosophy biting the bullet philosophy](https://cdn.publish0x.com/prod/fs/images/3bbc0cf7d9db13ffdf68e48df1e01a28574be819c508a4cd6b00a94323f135f8.jpeg)
Developed over two decades ago, transition management is not an exception it has been specifically critiqued for being democratically illegitimate and depoliticising issues. From early on, reflexive governance approaches have been problematised for lacking explicit consideration of formal governance and decision-making structures.