人工智能的语境论范式探析

人工智能的发展历程中贯穿着鲜明的语境论特征,现有的范式理论已无法对人工智能的发展状况做出正确描述,语境论有望成为人工智能理论发展的新范式。语境论范式的最大特征,就是所有问题都围绕语境问题而展开。人工智能中的语境,可分为表征语境和计算语境。建立在现有范式之上的语境论范式,必然以表征语境和计算语境为主要特征。表征语境与计算语境围绕智能模拟的语境问题逐步走向融合,将是语境论范式下人工智能发展的主要趋势。     

必要的分析--从历境主义认识论反思到本土化可能的理论构架

历境主义是科技史研究领域中后起的一种研究模式,源自西方的科学知识社会学和历史社会学,由于西方的历境主义论域主要集中在19、20世纪的科技史,故而其既有的经验可能不完全适合于中国史境中的中国问题.这就首先需要我们在哲学认识论层面上对历境主义展开必要的反思性分析.中国历境主义也是一种经验研究模式.这个模式可能的理论资源有二:马克斯·韦伯的"理想类型"和罗伯特·默顿的"中层理论",以及可以分解为可操作的经验变量,它们来自基础性的社会学范畴,但切合中国史境.     

The Foundationalism–Coherentism Opposition Revisited: The Case for Complementarism

In this paper, I show the complementarity of foundationalism and coherentism with respect to any efficient system of beliefs by means of a distinction between two types of proposition drawn from an analogy with an axiomatic system. This distinction is based on the way a given proposition is acknowledged as true, either by declaration (F-proposition) or by preservation (C-proposition). Within such a perspective, i.e., epistemological complementarism, not only can one see how the usual opposition between foundationalism and coherentism is irrelevant, but furthermore one can appreciate the reciprocal relation between these two theories as they refer to two separate epistemological functions involved in the dynamics of constituting and expanding an epistemic system.

试论科学编史学的语境化综合

关于科学史研究走向综合,科学史学界已达成共识,但就如何实现综合还没有统一可行的方法。自然科学研究的语境化,科学史研究本身的语境化,科学哲学与SSK等研究的语境化,史学理论研究的语境化四个方面,阐明了科学编史学综合化的必然性,表明科学史研究必将走向语境论的科学编史学综合,这也将成为科学史研究的重要的方法论原则。     

科学解释与科学理解——重思亨普尔覆盖律模型

根据一种传统的观点,科学的目标是解释而非理解.然而,包括爱因斯坦和亨普尔在内的许多著名科学家和哲学家都认为科学的目标是理解.但一些人坚持认为,即使这些著名科学家和哲学家用到"理解"这个词,他们只是随便一说;"解释是科学的目标"才是他们严肃认真的看法,至少对于亨普尔是如此.本文反驳了这一观点,探讨了"科学的目标是理解"这...     

麦金太尔的语境主义解读

在反对罗尔斯的建构主义基础上,麦金太尔提出了语境主义的正义探究模式。该模式主张从历史传统出发来研究正义问题,并以解决“认识论危机”为标准来解决正义之分歧。麦金太尔从历史传统出发研究正义具有一定的合理性,但该方法存在内在逻辑矛盾。哈贝马斯的道德商谈能够综合建构主义和语境主义,是一种出路。     

Philosophy of science for globalized privatization: Uncovering some limitations of critical contextual empiricism

The purpose of this paper is to uncover some of the limitations that critical contextual empiricism, and in particular Longino's contextualism, faces when trying to provide a normative account of scientific knowledge that is relevant to current scientific research. After presenting the four norms of effective criticism, I show how the norms have limited scope when dealing with cases of current scientific practices. I then present some historical evidence for the claim that the organization of science has changed in recent decades, and I argue that the uncovered limitations emerge from this larger phenomenon. Finally, I conclude by suggesting two ways to overcome the previously uncovered limitations.