论科学发现作为问题解决的特殊性——对赫伯特·西蒙机器发现研究的分析

将科学发现视为问题解决的观点,是科学哲学与认知研究相结合的产物,促成机器发现研究方法的产生。西蒙不仅指出科学发现作为问题解决的普遍特征,还概括了科学发现区别于其他问题解决的个性特征。这些个性特征从创造性的角度将科学发现与常规科学的问题解决区分开来。从科学问题的角度看,科学发现和机器发现都是从未知到已知的科学问题解决过程,体现了不同层面的创造性,使得机器发现可以通过再发现的形式模拟科学发现。     

Analogical Reasoning and Modeling in the Sciences

This paper aims at integrating the work onanalogical reasoning in Cognitive Science into thelong trend of philosophical interest, in this century,in analogical reasoning as a basis for scientificmodeling. In the first part of the paper, threesimulations of analogical reasoning, proposed incognitive science, are presented: Gentner's StructureMatching Engine, Mitchel's and Hofstadter's COPYCATand the Analogical Constraint Mapping Engine, proposedby Holyoak and Thagard. The differences andcontroversial points in these simulations arehighlighted in order to make explicit theirpresuppositions concerning the nature of analogicalreasoning. In the last part, this debate in cognitivescience is applied to some traditional philosophicalaccounts of formal and material analogies as a basisfor scientific modeling, like Mary Hesse`s, and tomore recent ones, that already draw from the work inArtificial Intelligence, like that proposed byAronson, Harré and Way.     

基于问题解决的科技创新人才能力培养策略研究

大力推动企业的自主创新活动对人才的创新能力提出了更高的要求。本文从探讨技术创新者的工作过程特征入手,提出了创新人才的知识与能力构成模型,并依据对创新人才能力培养方式的分析,提出了基于问题解决的创新人才能力发展途径。     

A New Mechanism for Transfer Between Conceptual Domains in Scientific Discovery and Education

Confronted with problems or situations that do not yield toknown theories and world views, scientists and students are alike. Theyare rarely able to directly build a model or a theory thereof. Rather,they must find ways to make sense of the circumstances using theircurrent knowledge and adjusting what is recognized in the process. Thisway of thinking, using past ways of perceiving the physical world tobuild new ones does not follow a logical path and cannot be described astheory revision. Likewise, in many situations it is awkward, indeedoften impossible, to resort to analogical reasoning to account for it.This paper presents a new mechanism, called `tunnel effect', that mayexplain, in part, how scientists and students reason while constructinga new conceptual domain. `Tunnel effect' is also contrasted withanalogical reasoning.     

科学知识变化的三种解释模式及其评价

科学知识的发展变化问题是20世纪科学哲学所关注的核心论题之一。纵观20世纪科学哲学的发展，主要地形成了三种解释模式：逻辑一理性论模式、认知论模式和社会学模式。虽然在20世纪的最后30年认知主义者和科学知识社会学家都对逻辑一理性论进行了猛烈的批判，但它们也未能对科学知识的变化问题给出令人满意的说明。对科学知识发展变化的完全说明应是这三种模式的有机统一。     

从迪昂问题看证伪主义与历史主义之争

迪昂问题是从整体论的立场提出的，它论述的问题是：既然一个证据只能反驳一组假设。那么一个证据反驳某一单个假设如何可能？这一问题成为当代科学哲学争论的主题之一。波普尔、库恩和拉卡托斯之问的争论代表证伪主义与历史主义之间的争论，其理论都与迪昂问题密切相关，事实上，他们直接或间接地对迪昂问题给出不同的解答或对待。不过，他们的观点都是不能令人满意的。     

The Prospects for Machine Discovery in Linguistics

The article reports the results from the developmentof four data-driven discovery systems, operating inlinguistics. The first mimics the induction methods ofJohn Stuart Mill, the second performs componentialanalysis of kinship vocabularies, the third is ageneral multi-class discrimination program, and thefourth finds logical patterns in data. These systemsare briefly described and some arguments are offeredin favour of machine linguistic discovery. Thearguments refer to the strength of machines incomputationally complex tasks, the guaranteedconsistency of machine results, the portability ofmachine methods to new tasks and domains, and thepotential machines provide for our gaining newinsights.     

科学创造力的机器发现研究述评

机器发现是结合科学哲学、科学史、人工智能和认知心理学对科学创造力进行研究的领域。这个跨学科的研究进路有4个主要研究方向。作为创造力研究的新进路,机器发现研究从方法、视角和对象等方面推进了对科学创造思维的探索,也因其方法论和认识论的特征引发了争议与挑战。本文在对上述诸方面进行分析的基础上,也对该研究进路的未来发展进行了思考。     

我国基础研究发展现状及当前国际科学前沿热点分析——能源领域重大科学问题

本文主要分析了当前我国能源面临的严峻形势及存在的主要问题,提出了未来我国能源发展面临的重大科学问题。     

我国基础研究发展现状及当前国际科学前沿热点分析——纳米科学发展中的重大科学问题

本文分析了纳米科技的发展现状和应用前景,提出了纳米科技发展中的重大科学问题。     

评波普尔对归纳问题的取消

波普尔认为,科学知识即理论内容的增长是科学进步的最为重要的标志。然而,科学理论的内容丰富程度与逻辑概率之间正好是反变关系,因此,科学的目标不是追求理论的高概率,而是追求理论的低概率,不是追求理论的可证实性,而是追求理论的可证伪性。既然归纳推理是确立结论真实性或概然性的推理,所以,归纳推理是与科学目标背道而驰的,因而应当将它从科学方法论中清除出去,相应地,休谟提出的归纳问题也就一并被取消了。然而,当波普尔引入“逼真性”概念以后,他的验证方法便不可能是完全演绎的,或多或少地含有归纳的成分。因此,波普尔对归纳问题的取消是不成功的。     

我国基础研究发展现状及当前国际科学前沿热点分析——全球气候变化中的关键科学问题

本文分析了全球气候变化的研究现状,并提出了全球气候变化中的重大科学问题。     

我国基础研究发展现状及当前国际科学前沿热点分析——干细胞领域重大科学问题

本文分析了干细胞发展的现状及应用前景,尤其是诱导性多能干细胞(iPS)的发展态势以及在再生医学中的应用前景,并提出了在未来干细胞发展中的若干重大科学问题。     

Model-Based and Manipulative Abduction in Science

What I call theoretical abduction (sentential and model-based)certainly illustrates much of what is important in abductive reasoning, especially the objective of selecting and creating a set of hypotheses that are able to dispense good (preferred) explanations of data, but fails to account for many cases of explanation occurring in science or in everyday reasoning when the exploitation of the environment is crucial. The concept of manipulative abduction is devoted to capture the role of action in many interesting situations: action provides otherwise unavailable information that enables the agent to solve problems by starting and performing a suitable abductive process of generation or selection of hypotheses. Many external things, usually inert from the epistemological point of view, can be transformed into what I callepistemic mediators, which are illustrated in the last part of the paper, together with an analysis of the related notions of ``perceptual and inceptual rehearsal' and of ``external representation'.     

论经济学中的实在论问题

科学实在论是当代科学哲学中的一个重要的方法论立场,其中的某些分支已经在经济学方法论文献中占有一定地位。梅基和劳森是经济学方法论中的两位主要的实在论者。科斯始终把经济现象看作独立的真实存在物,始终坚持理论的要素应该有所指,他的著作是经济学中的科学实在论的代表作。由于科学实在论是经济学方法论中的少数派观点,因而科斯的经济探究与主流经济学大异其趣。     

国内科技传播研究:三大方向与三大问题

国内科技传播研究已有20余年的发展历程，近些年来发展迅速，正在迈进一个新的发展阶段。作者对近年来的国内科技传播研究进行了分析，认为目前正在形成三大研究方向，同时也存在三大问题。     

人类早期视皮层对边缘所有权的选择性以及注意的调节作用

自然场景中的物体通常是互相遮挡的,识别这些物体的关键在于确定不同图像区域之间的边缘属于哪一个物体。然而,对于人类视皮层如何编码边缘所有权这个问题,我们知之甚少。在本研究中,我们设计了两个简单有效的视觉刺激作为实验材料。在这些刺激中,对情境信息的微小变动就可以导致边缘所有权的彻底改变。利用功能性核磁共振适应的方法,我们发现次级视皮层对边缘所有权显示了稳定可靠的选择性,而且这种选择性依赖于注意过程。本研究提供了第一个以人类被试为研究对象的实验证据,结果表明次级视皮层是对边缘所有权进行加工的关键区,而且该加工依赖于高级皮层区的调节反馈。     

Covariance/Invariance: A Cognitive Heuristic in Einstein's Relativity Theory Formation

Relativity Theory by Albert Einstein has been so far littleconsidered by cognitive scientists, notwithstanding its undisputedscientific and philosophical moment. Unfortunately, we don't have adiary or notebook as cognitively useful as Faraday's. But physicshistorians and philosophers have done a great job that is relevant bothfor the study of the scientist's reasoning and the philosophy ofscience. I will try here to highlight the fertility of a `triangulation'using cognitive psychology, history of science and philosophy of sciencein starting answering a clearly very complex question:why did Einstein discover Relativity Theory? Here we arenot much concerned with the unending question of precisely whatEinstein discovered, that still remains unanswered, for we have noconsensus over the exact nature of the theory's foundations(Norton 1993). We are mainly interested in starting to answer the`how question', and especially the following sub-question: what(presumably) were his goals and strategies in hissearch? I will base my argument on fundamental publications ofEinstein, aiming at pointing out a theory-specific heuristic, settingboth a goal and a strategy: covariance/invariance.The result has significance in theory formation in science, especiallyin concept and model building. It also raises other questions that gobeyond the aim of this paper: why was he so confident in suchheuristic? Why didn't many other scientists use it? Where did he keep ? such a heuristic? Do we have any other examples ofsimilar heuristic search in other scientific problemsolving?