自然主义、先验论证与怀疑主义——论斯特劳森的自然主义转向

后期斯特劳森追随休谟和维特根斯坦的道路而转向了自然主义,他认为任何企图通过论证来支持或反驳怀疑主义挑战的做法都是无根据的,因为人类的某些基本概念如物质物体、他心等概念是人类理性的自然倾向,是人类思维不可逃避的认知模式的体现。不过,自然主义需要联合先验论证来阐明这些信念的基础地位,否则就会流于口号。总而言之,自然主义是一种探究真理的第三条路径,它试图约束人类理性的过分自负,从而展示真理的自然属性。     

String theory and general methodology: A mutual evaluation

String theory has been the dominating research field in theoretical physics during the last decades. Despite the considerable time elapse, no new testable predictions have been derived by string theorists and it is understandable that doubts have been voiced. Some people have argued that it is time to give up since testability is wanting. But the majority has not been convinced and they continue to believe that string theory is the right way to go. This situation is interesting for philosophy of science since it highlights several of our central issues. In this paper we will discuss string theory from a number of different perspectives in general methodology. We will also relate the realism/antirealism debate to the current status of string theory. Our goal is two-fold; both to take a look at string theory from philosophical perspectives and to use string theory as a test case for some philosophical issues.     

道家思想通向现代生态伦理学的两个基本观念

道家思想具有独特而丰富的、深邃的伦理道德观,具有许多与现代生态伦理学相通的基本理念和价值取向。道家重视自然,强调用自然来解释自然,“道法自然”,把人视作自然的一部分,人应该遵守自然的规律和法则;道家生态伦理思想也不同于西方传统主流思想中强调“人为自然立法”的自然观,道家将天地人视为一个有机的统一整体,认为不仅自然万物之间,而且人与自然万物之间都存在着共同的本质,遵循着共同的法则,表现为一个共生共荣、同源同体的有机整体。“自然主义”和“道通为一”是道家思想通向现代生态伦理学的两个基本观念,不仅显示了古老的东方智慧,对现代生态伦理学发展更具有重要的意义。     

Why history matters to philosophy of physics

Naturalized metaphysics remains the default presupposition of much contemporary philosophy of physics. As metaphysics is supposed to concern the general structure of reality, so scientific naturalism draws upon our best physical theories to attempt to answer the foundational question “par excellence ” viz., “how could the world possibly be the way this theory says it is?” A particular case study, Hilbert's attempt to analyze and explain a seeming “pre-established harmony” between mind and nature, is offered as a salutary reminder that naturalism's ready inference from physical theory to ontology may be too quick.     

近代科学革命时期基督教与科学的相互作用——以麦尔赛纳为例

将基督教与科学的关系概括为"冲突"或"和谐"会带来掩盖历史细节的模糊性,我们应在尊重历史文献及人类生活世界的复杂性的基础上探索基督教与科学之间的相互作用。近代科学革命初期,西方自然观面临着亚里士多德自然哲学、自然主义及机械论的自然科学三重力量的角逐。麦尔赛纳站在维护基督教义的宗教立场上认识到自然主义的异端性质及亚里士多德学说的缺陷;他果断地接受并传播机械论的自然科学以实现基督信仰与新自然观的融合,生动地体现了这一时期基督教与科学之间的相互作用。     

走出幼儿教育的误区:自然主义的视角

幼儿教育对幼儿身心发展有至关重要的作用。面对在教育实施过程中出现的小学教育提前化、特长教育泛滥化、智育知识化等违背幼儿身心发展特点的现象,如何对幼儿进行正确合理的教育值得深思。自然主义教育理论提倡的适应儿童的天性和身心的发展进行教育的理念对这一问题无疑具有重要的启发和指导作用。     

Bird, Kuhn, and positivism

I challenge Alexander Bird’s contention that the divergence between Kuhn’s views and recent philosophy of science is a matter of Kuhn having taken a wrong turn. Bird is right to remind us of Kuhn’s naturalistic tendencies, but these are not clearly an asset, rather than a liability. Kuhn was right to steer clear of extreme referential conceptions of meaning, since these court an unacceptable semantic scepticism. Although he eschewed the concepts of truth and knowledge as philosophers of science have tended to understand them, this doesn’t mean that, as Bird claims, Kuhn was a sceptic about scientific knowledge. Bird’s claim that recent philosophical naturalism represents a rejection of positivism far more thorough than Kuhn’s is problematic since, from a different perspective, this kind of naturalism can be seen to have inherited some equally important positivistic themes. Finally, it’s not clear that Kuhn should have endorsed a computational approach to the philosophy of science, such as connectionism, since such approaches may be more behaviouristic, and thus unacceptably positivistic, than the original cognitive revolution promised.     

Naturalized epistemology, or what the Strong Programme can’t explain

In this paper I argue that the Strong Programme’s aim to provide robust explanations of belief acquisition is limited by its commitment to the symmetry principle. For Bloor and Barnes, the symmetry principle is intended to drive home the fact that epistemic norms are socially constituted. My argument here is that even if our epistemic standards are fully naturalized—even relativized—they nevertheless can play a pivotal role in why individuals adopt the beliefs that they do. Indeed, sometimes the fact that a belief is locally endorsed as rational is the only reason why an individual holds it. In this way, norms of rationality have a powerful and unique role in belief formation. But if this is true then the symmetry principle’s emphasis on ‘sameness of type’ is misguided. It has the undesirable effect of not just naturalizing our cognitive commitments, but trivializing them. Indeed, if the notion of ‘similarity’ is to have any content, then we are not going to classify as ‘the same’ beliefs that are formed in accordance with deeply entrenched epistemic norms as ones formed without reflection on these norms, or ones formed in spite of these norms. My suggestion here is that we give up the symmetry principle in favor of a more sophisticated principle, one that allows for a taxonomy of causes rich enough to allow us to delineate the unique impact epistemic norms have on those individuals who subscribe to them.     

论欧美现代派文学中的自然主义倾向

欧美现代派文学具有浓厚的自然主义倾向 ,其作家作品注重内在心理自然真实 ,描写丑陋意象与生理情欲 ,以及创作中的实验革新精神 ,与自然主义具有一脉相承的沿袭关系