全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

海伦·朗基诺对不充分决定论题的批判与重构
Helen Longino’s Critique and Reconstruction of the Under-Determination Thesis

DOI: 10.12677/acpp.2024.135129, PP. 864-870

Keywords: 不充分决定论题,批判的语境经验主义,科学知识
Under-Determination Thesis
, Critical Contextual Empiricism, Scientific Knowledge

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

在《重新认识证据和不完全决定性》一文中,海伦·朗基诺对科学哲学领域的经典议题“不充分决定论题”进行了深入探讨。她指出,以往对该论题的解读存在偏颇,过于强调经验的等价性,却忽视了证据与理论之间的关联性,进而未能全面考虑知识产生的社会性背景。为了弥补这一不足,朗基诺提出了“批判的语境经验主义”这一新视角,旨在强调知识的社会属性,聚焦于知识的生成过程,并通过引入批判性思维,以避免陷入相对主义的困境。朗基诺的独特分析路径为不完全决定论题提供了新的见解,并为科学进步贡献了富有指导性的观点。然而,关于社会性因素如何确保证据的有效性,以及如何实现客观性的规范等问题,仍有待进一步探讨。
Helen E. Longino, in her article “Rethinking Evidence and Under-Determination” undertook a rigorous reexamination of the classic “under-determination thesis” within the philosophy of science. She pointed out that previous interpretations of this thesis were biased, overly emphasizing the equivalence of experience while ignoring the relevance between theory and evidence. This oversight, she argued, led to a significant underestimation of the social dimensions of knowledge production. To rectify this imbalance, Longino introduced a novel perspective termed “critical contextual empiricism.” This approach sought to reinterpret and enrich our understanding of the under-determination thesis by emphasizing the social characteristics of knowledge and its generative processes. She skillfully integrated critical thinking into her framework, ensuring that it avoided the pitfalls of relativism and maintained a robust commitment to objectivity. Longino’s unique contribution provided profound insights into the complexities of the under-determination thesis and offered valuable guidance for advancing scientific inquiry. However, further discussions are needed on how social factors can ensure the validity of evidence and how to achieve the norms of objectivity.

References

[1]  (法)皮埃尔·迪昂, 著. 物理学理论的目的与结构[M]. 李醒民, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2017: 227-267.
[2]  (美)蒯因. 蒯因著作集(第四卷) [M]. 涂纪亮, 陈波, 主编. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2007: 46-48.
[3]  (美)范·弗拉森, 著. 科学的形象[M]. 郑祥福, 译. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2005: 24.
[4]  陈波. 蒯因的“两个教条”批判及其影响[J]. 首都师范大学学报(社会科学版), 2000(3): 84-94.
[5]  (美)海伦·朗基诺, 著. 知识的命运[M]. 成素梅, 王不凡, 译. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 2016: 102-198.
[6]  王不凡. 批评的语境经验主义的局限性及其拓展[J]. 自然辩证法研究, 2019, 35(1): 84-88.
[7]  海伦·朗基诺, 戴潘. 重新认识证据和不完全决定性[J]. 哲学分析, 2015, 6(6): 115-126.
[8]  王不凡. 如何理解《知识的命运》——访斯坦福大学哲学系海伦·朗基诺教授[J]. 哲学分析, 2015, 6(6): 156-169.
[9]  黄翔. 对批判的语境经验主义生成进路的辩护[J]. 哲学分析, 2019, 10(1): 3-16.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133