首页> 外文期刊>Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte >Philosophy of the Art of Science. Historical Remarks on the Significance of Rules in Scientific Language
【24h】

Philosophy of the Art of Science. Historical Remarks on the Significance of Rules in Scientific Language

机译:科学艺术哲学。科学语言规则意义的历史性论述

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Philosophy of the Art of Science. Historical Remarks on the Significance of Rules in Scientific Language. This paper undertakes first steps toward a 'Philosophy of the Art of Science' from a History of Science and Philosophy of Language perspective. Traditionally it is understood that Philosophy of Science assesses science as to the validity of its methods and to the question of how it is that we hold its claims to be true. However, the range of presuppositions here is considerable: Roughly, it spans from Gottlob Frege's 'The True' (das Wahre) as the aim of scientific inquiry on the one end, to Paul Feyerabend's pluralistic understanding of science in a democratic society on the other. Despite this profound difference, however, we can nonetheless detect some similarity between them. Both hold science to be a normative endeavor: Frege thinks we ought to strive for true thoughts as somewhat independent ontological entities; Feyerabend thinks we ought to strive for a pragmatic humanism that takes the historicity of our knowledge into account. But while Frege ventured to show that natural language can benefit from insights drawn from the normative logic of formalized languages, Feyerabend discounted the idea of formalized language altogether, but with no less normative verve in regard to our scientific concept formation. Hence the combining question is whether scientific concept formation is indeed a rule-governed behavior, or, put more generally, whether semantic content as such is normative. Guided by this question, the present paper draws a line from Frege through Russell, Wittgenstein, Carnap, and Quine, to those authors who follow or refute Saul Kripke's Wittgensteinian notion of semantic normativity in the most recent discussion of today. However, the paper does not proceed chronologically, but rather thematically along the major lines of argument. Hence after a brief survey of Feyerabend's philosophy of scientific concept formation (I), we explore Frege and his legacy on semantic normativity (II), and investigate the route that eventually led to present day semantic rule-skepticism (III). We conclude with Carnap's 'Principle of Tolerance' combined with Feyerabend's notion of Science as an Art, parallels of which we can even find in Kant's third Critique (IV).
机译:科学艺术哲学。关于规则在科学语言中的意义的历史性评论。从科学史和语言哲学的角度出发,本文迈出了迈向“科学艺术哲学”的第一步。传统上,人们理解科学哲学会根据科学方法的有效性以及我们认为科学主张是正确的问题来评估科学。但是,这里的前提条件是相当大的:一方面,它涵盖了一方面出于科学探究目的的戈特洛夫·弗雷格(Gottlob Frege)的“真相”(das Wahre),另一方面则是保罗·费耶拉本德(Paul Feyerabend)对民主社会中科学的多元理解。 。尽管存在巨大的差异,但是我们仍然可以发现它们之间的某些相似之处。两者都将科学视为一项规范性的工作:弗雷格(Frege)认为,我们应该为真正的思想而努力,因为它们是某种独立的本体论实体。费耶阿本德(Feyerabend)认为我们应该努力追求一种务实的人本主义,将我们的知识的历史性考虑在内。但是,尽管弗雷格(Frege)冒险证明自然语言可以从形式化语言的规范逻辑中得出的见解中受益,但费耶阿本德(Feyerabend)完全否定了形式化语言的概念,但在科学概念的形成上却不乏规范性。因此,合并的问题是科学概念的形成是否确实是规则控制的行为,或更笼统地说,语义内容本身是否具有规范性。在这个问题的指导下,本文从弗雷格(Frege)到罗素(Russell),维特根斯坦(Wittgenstein),卡尔纳普(Carnap)和奎因(Quine),向那些在今天的最新讨论中遵循或反驳索尔·克里普克(Saul Kripke)的维特根斯坦语义规范性概念的作者画出了一条线。但是,本文并没有按照时间顺序进行,而是按照主题进行了主题讨论。因此,在对费耶阿本德的科学概念形成哲学进行了简要概述(一)之后,我们探索了弗雷格及其在语义规范上的遗产(二),并研究了最终导致当今语义规则怀疑主义的途径(三)。我们以卡纳普(Carnap)的“宽容原则”和费耶阿本德(Feyerabend)的“科学即艺术”概念作为结论,甚至可以在康德的第三次批评(IV)中找到类似的东西。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号