發(fā)布時間：2018-06-06 17:33

  本文選題：科學(xué)客觀性 + 不同用法　； 參考：《自然辯證法研究》2017年11期

【摘要】：人們對科學(xué)客觀性有眾多不同的用法和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。作為科學(xué)哲學(xué)和科學(xué)史界定客觀性概念的一種主要進(jìn)路,對客觀性不同用法的分類學(xué)研究面臨著諸多困境。哈金和阿克斯特爾將這些困難解釋為客觀性可能是具有家族相似性的概念;并且哈金認(rèn)為人們甚至完全可以在不提及客觀性概念的情況下討論科學(xué)客觀性相關(guān)問題,客觀性概念是多余的,"讓我們別談客觀性了"。哈金和阿克斯特爾的觀點(diǎn)是對分類學(xué)研究所面臨困境的猜想性解釋。不基于他們的猜測性解釋,對客觀性不同用法分類的完備性、不同用法間的對立性,以及不同用法間的選擇的分析顯示,分類學(xué)研究進(jìn)路必然面臨困境。通過分類學(xué)研究界定客觀性是一條死胡同。
[Abstract]:There are many different uses and standards for scientific objectivity. As a main way to define the concept of objectivity in philosophy of science and history of science, the taxonomic study of different uses of objectivity faces many difficulties. Harkin and Axelter interpret these difficulties as the notion that objectivity may be a family similarity, and Harkin believes that people can even discuss scientific objectification-related issues without mentioning the concept of objectivity. The concept of objectivity is superfluous. "Let's not talk about objectivity." Harkin and Axel's view is a conjectural explanation of the dilemma facing taxonomic research. The analysis of the completeness of different categories of objective usages, the opposites between different usages, and the choice of different usages shows that the approach to taxonomic research is bound to face a dilemma, not based on their conjectural explanations. It is a dead end to define objectivity through taxonomic research.
【作者單位】： 華南理工大學(xué)科學(xué)技術(shù)哲學(xué)研究中心;
【基金】：教育部人文社會科學(xué)研究青年基金項(xiàng)目“當(dāng)代物理學(xué)中的超驗(yàn)認(rèn)識研究”(17YJC720018)
【分類號】：N02
，

本文編號：1987546