Abstract

Communication in science is basically established as communication between colloquies within a field of science. Scientific journals, scientific conferences etc. are based on this principle. For example, the notion of peer reviewer supposes such a collegial, monodisciplinary framework. However, multidisciplinary research and engagement with practical problems enforce us to look at the situation in a new way. What can a multidisciplinary discussion mean? How to build up such a multidisciplinary discussion? Is such a discussion merely a struggle between incompatible opinions – science war? In a proper dialogue the final referee should be the practice, not a scientific theory