Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions between sociology and epistemology

The aim of the paper is to clarify Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions. We propose to discriminate between a scientific revolution, which is a sociological event of a change of attitude of the scientific community with respect to a particular theory, and an epistemic rupture, which is a linguistic fact consisting of a discontinuity in the linguistic framework in which this theory is formulated. We propose a classification of epistemic ruptures into four types. In the paper, each of these types of epistemic ruptures is illustrated by examples from physics. The classification of epistemic ruptures can be used as a basis for a classification of scientific revolutions and thus for a refinement of our view of the progress of science.     

The experimenters' regress reconsidered: Replication,tacit knowledge,and the dynamics of knowledge generation

This paper revisits the debate between Harry Collins and Allan Franklin, concerning the experimenters' regress. Focusing my attention on a case study from recent psychology (regarding experimental evidence for the existence of a Mozart Effect), I argue that Franklin is right to highlight the role of epistemological strategies in scientific practice, but that his account does not sufficiently appreciate Collins's point about the importance of tacit knowledge in experimental practice. In turn, Collins rightly highlights the epistemic uncertainty (and skepticism) surrounding much experimental research. However, I will argue that his analysis of tacit knowledge fails to elucidate the reasons why scientists often are (and should be) skeptical of other researchers' experimental results. I will present an analysis of tacit knowledge in experimental research that not only answers to this desideratum, but also shows how such skepticism can in fact be a vital enabling factor for the dynamic processes of experimental knowledge generation.     

类比论证的特征及其评价标准

尽管隐喻和类比都属于科学的逻辑,但隐喻是创造相似性的,因此,如何评价一个隐喻的好坏,尚无公认的标准。而类比论证的基本特征是基于(已接受的)相似性的推理,从而可以对它给出相关评价。Bartha近来提出类比论证的评价标准和程序,他提出的标准主要包括先验关联和泛化潜力两个方面的。以达尔文的人工选择和自然选择的类比为例表明Bartha的标准和程序可以用于说明科学知识的变化问题。     

一致主义与经验论

一致主义确证理论认为只有信念之间的一致才能产生确证,这就使它面临如何容纳经验内容的难题。古典一致主义者将经验等同于信念,邦久用认知自发信念来解决经验观察的确证问题,但这些理论都存在问题。麦克道威尔将经验构造为概念性但不是信念性的状态,为解决经验观察在知识确证中的地位提供了一种思路。     

新手抉择专家意见的依据是什么?

在科学实践和生活世界中，面对一个问题，当两个专家给出不一致或相；中突的专家意见时，外行或新手是否能够又如何能够获得辩护地相信一个专家意见而不是另一个专家意见?     

知识论析取主义与新恶魔论题

知识论析取主义是当代知识论的新思潮。该理论汲取了知识论内在主义与外在主义的元素,并且以此为基础尝试解决知识论的一些核心问题。新恶魔论题是外在主义理论面临的一个巨大难题,因此该论题也不可避免地会成为知识论析取主义要面对的问题。基于行动哲学中对行动理由的讨论,在知识论领域也可区分出辩护性认知理由、动机性认知理由和解释性认知理由。在此基础上,知识论析取主义者获得了回应新恶魔论题的一种方法。在回应怀疑论攻击的过程中,认知行为与认知结果之间的规范性关系也得到了更深入的理解。     

探索科学实践中认知规范的历史性——评哈金的科学推理风格理论

哈金的科学推理风格理论是历史知识论的重要研究方向之一。最近,马丁.库什从科学知识社会学的角度出发,对哈金的理论提出了一系列批评。这些批评认为,哈金的理论无法避免内在主义编史学和极端相对主义的结论,它是建立在不恰当的论据之上的。     

权利冲突保护论——从权利冲突概念角度分析

权利冲突是指两个或者两个以上具有不同法律保护之依据的权利,因权利主体价值利益的差异,以及法律对权利体系规范的不确定性,所导致的权利边界模糊,从而引发权利行使过程中不和谐、矛盾的状态。我们在分析权利冲突产生的原因之后,对权利冲突的解决提出了五个方法:在公权与私权领域以生命权优先为原则;私权领域私权体系规范化原则为前提;个案分析为核心;在充分肯定代表个体利益的权利基础上,坚持代表社会利益的权利适度优先原则;特殊主体权利限制原则。     

Value-entanglement and the integrity of scientific research

Throughout much of the 20th century, philosophers of science maintained a position known as the value-free ideal, which holds that non-epistemic (e.g., moral, social, political, or economic) values should not influence the evaluation and acceptance of scientific results. In the last few decades, many philosophers of science have rejected this position by arguing that non-epistemic values can and should play an important role in scientific judgment and decision-making in a variety of contexts, including the evaluation and acceptance of scientific results. Rejecting the value-free ideal creates some new and vexing problems, however. One of these is that relinquishing this philosophical doctrine may undermine the integrity of scientific research if practicing scientists decide to allow non-epistemic values to impact their judgment and decision-making. A number of prominent philosophers of science have sought to show how one can reject the value-free ideal without compromising the integrity of scientific research. In this paper, we examine and critique their views and offer our own proposal for protecting and promoting scientific integrity. We argue that the literature on research ethics and its focus on adherence to norms, rules, policies, and procedures that together promote the aims of science can provide a promising foundation for building an account of scientific integrity. These norms, rules, policies, and procedures provide a level of specificity that is lacking in most philosophical discussions of science and values, and they suggest an important set of tasks for those working in science and values—namely, assessing, justifying, and prioritizing them. Thus, we argue that bringing together the literature on research ethics with the literature on science and values will enrich both areas and generate a more sophisticated and detailed account of scientific integrity.     

如何理解先验知识?

先验知识是一种"独立于经验"的知识。它所独有的特征是排除将感观世界作为其知识的基石或理由,而通过非感知理性获得,如直觉,纯理性和反省等等。本论文基于当代分析哲学家对康德先验知识概念的重新解读,修正和提炼,分析先验概念的消极描述,积极描述以及探讨不可修正性是否可作为其特征,进一步论证先验辩护即为先验的本质,赋予其时代特征。这一概念能为我们提供结合先验和经验各自优点的更好评价,同时也让我们更好地理解经验是如何与先验保持和谐,至少在原则上保持和谐的。