The Future of Systems Thinking

Due to the diminishing popularity of systems thinking, an attempt is done to predict its future in the university world. Two starting points are used: one in the traditional scientific community, being its habitat; and the other in the surrounding society, being its area of application. The investigation shows that systems thinking is highly needed, although its nearest future seems bleak. The systemic challenge to the traditional academic world has unfortunately been taken as a threat against its existence. The scientific and educational impact of systems thinking is therefore opposed as an alternative to the old scientific paradigm. Furthermore, the resistance to new theories moving across disciplinary boundaries seems stronger than resistance to theories within the disciplines.     

系统科学研究对象、任务与学科性质探究

以国内外系统科学前沿研究为基础,深入分析系统科学的研究对象、任务和学科性质。研究对象是存在和演化的具体系统中一般意义的关系性特征;研究任务是从发现问题、总结"同型性"、探究"规律性"、解决问题再到发现问题的反馈回路;系统科学具有超越科学性、中立科学性、建构论、弱经验性和问题指向性等特征。     

科学报告英语术语翻译研究——以《联合国教科文组织科学报告2010》为例

科技术语翻译在科技发展、传播和交流过程中扮演着重要角色,由于专业知识和术语构成的复杂性,科技术语翻译成为科技翻译中的瓶颈。文章针对目前科学报告术语翻译混乱和翻译标准不一致的问题,从《联合国教科文组织科学报告2010》中选取典型术语翻译实例,在当前科技术语翻译研究的基础上,试从三个方面提出科学报告术语标准化翻译的策略。     

开放科学及建构的制度逻辑

科学与技术是两种不同的制度模式,前者属于科学共和国"Republic of Science",后者属于技术王国"Realm of Technology",两者具有天生的互补性。开放科学作为一种非市场化的激励制度,提出一套基于优先权的报酬体制,强调在知识产权保护前提下追求创新知识社会福利的最大化,对于催生高质量的研究和创新(Research&Innovation)至关重要。本文在阐述开放科学起源、发展与理论内涵的基础上,重点从公共资助、累积创新、知识产权保护和知识分工四个方面,深入探究了开放科学建构的制度逻辑。     

材料科学与工程专业综合实验的教学改革与实践

针对人才培养及专业特点，开设了应用型、模块化、综合性的材料科学与工程专业综合实验，经过改革和实践，在培养学生综合实践能力和创新意识等方面取得了较好的效果，同时也提出了进一步改革和完善的设想。     

近五年来中国现代科学家研究述评

科学家研究是中国现代科技史研究的进路和重要内容。本文以近五年来六种期刊发表的科学家研究论文为例,对学界对此问题的研究做简单述评,并认为应该加强科学思想史的研究。     

公理·规则·公德——儒家私德与墨家公德之伦理辨析

通过对孔孟儒家私德伦理与墨子墨家公德伦理的比较研究,发现科学理性之缺失是儒家私德伦理陷入现代困境及其深层悖论的根源;而墨家科学理性的优势,在其兼相爱和交相利公德伦理体系建构中,起到了价值观和方法论的奠基作用。并指出:规则是社会公德的核心,遵循和崇尚规则以及公平竞争和合作,既是一种科学精神,又是一种公德精神,在当今中国社会发展和公德建设中亟待振兴。     

Ordinary language philosophy,explanation, and the historical turn in philosophy of science

Taking a cue from remarks Thomas Kuhn makes in 1990 about the historical turn in philosophy of science, I examine the history of history and philosophy of science within parts of the British philosophical context in the 1950s and early 1960s. During this time, ordinary language philosophy's influence was at its peak. I argue that the ordinary language philosophers' methodological recommendation to analyze actual linguistic practice influences several prominent criticisms of the deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation and that these criticisms relate to the historical turn in philosophy of science. To show these connections, I primarily examine the work of Stephen Toulmin, who taught at Oxford from 1949 to 1954, and Michael Scriven, who completed a dissertation on explanation under Gilbert Ryle and R.B. Braithwaite in 1956. I also consider Mary Hesse's appeal to an ordinary language-influenced account of meaning in her account of the role of models and analogies in scientific reasoning, and W.H. Watson's Wittgensteinian philosophy of science, an early influence on Toulmin. I think there are two upshots to my historical sketch. First, it fills out details of the move away from logical positivism to more historical- and practice-focused philosophies of science. Second, questions about linguistic meaning and the proper targets and aims of philosophical analysis are part and parcel of the historical turn, as well as its reception. Looking at the philosophical background during which so-called linguistic philosophers also had a hand in bringing these questions to prominence helps us understand why.     

软科学作为一个学科门类何以可能

软、硬科学区分的哲学基础是“实证”.软科学从产生以来经历了由科学学到科学社会学,再扩展到科技与社会的历程,科技与社会是软科学的基本研究领域.软科学的三个特点决定它的理论体系具有三个维度,软科学学术队伍可分为三个群体,生存困境产生的原因是学科定位不明确.软科学的学科建设要和科学技术学的学科建设结合起来,这是学界的共识,也是构建和谐社会的要求.     

A new twist to the No Miracles Argument for the success of science

J. D. Trout has recently developed a new defense of scientific realism, a new version of the No Miracles Argument. I critically evaluate Trout's novel defense of realism. I argue that Trout's argument for scientific realism and the related explanation for the success of science are self-defeating. In the process of arguing against the traditional realist strategies for explaining the success of science, he inadvertently undermines his own argument.