| 中文题目: | 重构科学发现的概念框架：元科学理论、理论与实验 | ||||||
| 英文题目: | |||||||
| 作 者: | 袁江洋 | ||||||
| 刊物名称: | 科学文化评论 | ||||||
| 发表年度: | 2012 | ||||||
| 卷: | 2012,9 | ||||||
| 期: | (4) | ||||||
| 页码: | 56-79 | ||||||
| 中文摘要: | 本文将致力于阐述这样一种哲学努力：它意在沿着库恩所提示的历史的科学哲学方向，直面发现的与境，重构科学发现的概念框架，它承认“观察渗透理论”，但却并不由此走向相对主义，而坚持以理性的方式理解科学探索的过程。⑴ 在理解科学发现尤其是科学理论的构作过程时，引入元科学理论概念。元科学理论是指在自然哲学或科学的学科或学科分支领域上、在长时段意义上对科学探索实践起组织和引导作用的种种形而上学学说，具体地说，是指科学家关于其研究对象的本体论承诺及相关方法论构架。它们往往以成对形式出现于自然哲学或科学发展的早期阶段，并在此后科学发展过程中以升级或综合的形式不断丰富、发展。⑵ 以元科学理论、理论和实验三元互动框架理解科学探索和发展的过程，强调科学探索的系统性。即使是在理论缺位的情形下，科学实验探索的系统性也并没有因之解体——在元理论的组织和引导作用下，科学实验依然保持为彼此关联的、有活力的系统。⑶ 承认实验陈述在其产生之初以及学术交流过程中是理论负载的或元理论负载的，但坚持认为它们仍然具有跨理论或跨元理论的普遍科学意义——至少，持有不同元理论的科学家可以在充分理解的基础上以自己的术语重新表述他人的实验陈述，这是因为科学探索的主体是积极行动的主体，因为元理论之间的不相容只是局部的不相容，允许被暂时搁置，也因为实验陈述所描述的外部世界是同一的。⑷ 在元理论引导下发生的实验的精致化进程往往是科学发现的关键，成功的探索过程最终伴随着判决性实验（组）的出现，判决性实验（组）能够提升整个实验系统的认识层次和判决力，使之一致否决过时的理论，肯定新理论。⑸ 在理论概念框架下解科学变化的类型和级别。文章对某些重要案例进行了简要的历史分析，以进一步说明元理论概念框架及其编史学价值。 |
||||||
| 英文摘要: | "This paper aims at reshaping the conception frame of understanding scientific discoveries along with the direction of historical philosophy of science clarified by Thomas S. Kuhn, and the central concept of the frame is “meta-theories”, which usually emerged in early stages of and on varies research fields of science or natural philosophy and might function as long-durational metaphysical doctrines hold by scientists. Meta-theories consist of researchers’ ontological commits on what they explore is and related methodological beliefs or factors on how to do their research and can be discerned only by related historical studies. Meta-theories do not directly explain observational and experimental statements; however, when lacking an accepted theory or before a sophisticated one could emerge, they organize or reorganize researchers’ practice of exploration into a whole system and guide them to make up new theories. Experimental claims, although they are meta-theories-laden or theories-laden when they were born and cannot be translated in the form of “word-to-word” between different discourses caused and guided by different meta-theories, have general scientific significance and can at least be understood and restated by scientists who believe in different meta-theories, because 1) scientists involved in related study are active actors who are endowed with an ability of understanding others’ experimental claims, 2) different meta-theories in any special field are not totally contrary to each other and the differences between them might be put aside when needed, and more importantly, 3) all experimental claims describe the same world. Scientists design, fulfill and develop new experiments under the guide of their meta-theories and at the same time conceive new theories, and such a process of experimental exploration, called as “the refinement process of the experimental system”, if it could be completed successfully, may end with a group of critical experiments and at the same time arrive at an acceptable new theory. Critical experiments, as higher-level ones, which could tell scientists the answer not only to the question of “what it is” but to the question of “how and/or why it is”, can activate and cause the whole experimental system to make a choice between competitive theories, that is, to unanimously provide justification to one theory and falsification to the other. Finally, certain contributions or discoveries of Boyle, Newton, and Lavoisier are taken as cases to illustrate the philosophical and historiographical approaches of the “meta-theories” conception frame." |
||||||
