维持科学与革新科学的科学范式

《科学革命的结构》一书中集中反映了库恩的科学观,其强调:接受以科学史为依据的批驳考验是阐述任何科学哲学的必经之路,所以他从科学史角度探讨了科学的本质、科学革命的结构以及科学发展模式等问题,提出了"范式"、"不可通约"等概念,改变了人们对于科学的认识,特别是他首次把社会因素、心理因素引入到对科学认识过程的研究中,描绘出了一种与逻辑实证主义、批判理性主义"大异其趣的科学观"。     

试论库恩“范式与自然”的关系

目前大多数研究认为库恩是反实在论者,但当细读库恩的代表作《科学革命的结构》时,发现库恩既强调范式也重视自然。本文试图厘清库恩的范式与自然的关系,从前科学时期、常规科学时期、反常和危机时期到科学革命时期这四个阶段,去探讨和分析库恩对范式与自然的关系的论述,认为库恩始终在关注科学与自然的对话,关心理论与自然的相互一致,同时,库恩认为,范式的危机源于自然界的反常,而范式的转换基于科学革命。据此,本文得出结论,认为库恩不仅仅强调范式,实际上一直在强调自然界的重要作用,库恩是一个"自然-范式准(或二重)实在论者"。     

哲学有范式吗？

库恩构造范式概念，是用来说明科学共同体、常规科学与科学发展的。后来这个概念被国外和国内的学者先后引入哲学并频繁使用。但“哲学是否有范式”的问题却极少有人论及。从库恩范式概念的特定内涵出发分析，哲学或哲学研究根本没有范式，充其量只有“流型”或“显型”而已。而国内哲学界迄今仅有的两篇论证哲学有范式的文章，亦难称有效。     

库恩不可通约性论点的语言学转向

作为库恩解说科学革命的必要前提,不可通约性论点是其科学哲学理论的重要组成部分。但他的这一论点在《科学革命的结构》以后,却有了较大的变化,由《科学革命的结构》中的不可通约变成了后来的不可翻译。本通过对库恩在这一问题上的思想变化历程的考察,试图指明,这一变化实际上标志着库恩科学革命理论的语言学转向,既是其应对批评的内在需要,也是他为挽救科学哲学而作的一种努力。     

论库恩的范式不可通约性及其语言学转向

范式的不可通约性是库恩科学哲学思想的重要部分。在《科学革命的结构》之后,库恩的范式"不可通约性"思想遭到了许多的质疑与批评,为了消除这些质疑,库恩对不可通约性做了一些修改,使不可通约性发生了很多变化,这一理论渐渐发生语言学转向,不可通约性转化成为不可翻译性。通过对库恩科学哲学思想的深入研究,不仅解释了库恩"不可通约性"的完整内涵,描述了库恩思想语言学转换的全过程,也可以从库恩的思想转换中得到一些启示。     

合理性是科学理论的本相

形形色色的后现代流派的一个共同特征是极力反对科学的合理性,可是合理性无论如何是科学理论的本相——这主要表现在它的抽象性、符号性、非自然性或非显然性、因果性、一致性或连贯性、系统性或条理性等方面。     

库恩科学革命的缺陷

库恩关于科学革命的论述的根本缺陷就是对科学发展的内在机理没有讲清楚。他认为科学的发展机理乃是充满偶然因素的随意性：这首先在于他割断了历史本身的联系和发展，其次就是范式本身没有矛盾和问题。     

对科学的人文价值的忽视——逻辑实证主义科学观及其缺陷

本文对逻辑实证主义的科学观做了批判性的考察和分析 ,认为逻辑实证主义有两个显著的特征 :一是实证主义 ;二是科学主义。其根本缺陷在于 :只重视“科学的逻辑”,而严重忽视了科学赖以产生和发展的人文背景 ;只强调科学的实证精神 ,而严重忽视了人的创造精神或创新精神 ;强调科学与人文两个世界的截然区分 ,而严重地忽视了科学与人文文化的关联及其科学本身的人文意义和人文价值 ,从而导致科学与人文精神的分离     

库恩科学修辞思想及其评价

库恩从历史角度对科学革命进行分析得出“革命前后就是范式心理转换”的结论,由此招致众多科学家和哲学家的批评,为此库恩以科学修辞为其理论进行辩护,其中不乏精彩的科学修辞思想.他极力主张在范式的转换过程中,每一派必须尽力通过劝说,以使对方转变,而且转换过程并非是纯粹非理性的过程,而是理性非常强的有意识的选择.在库恩看来,理性的理由和非理性理由在理论选择过程中都非常重要,这正是其科学修辞思想的合理性所在.但是他的科学修辞语境过于单一,最终使科学修辞理性重建目标成为幻想.     

科学发展理念中的"实践"概念浅析

发展是当代世界的主题，实现全面、协调、可持续的发展，要以马克思主义实践观为指导，认清现实“实践”中的认识性实践和改造性实践两个概念。正确把握“认识性实践”与“改造性实践”的区别与联系，充分认识到认识性实践在科学发展理念中的重要性，科学地实现发展的可持续性。     

观念的嬗变体系的归一--中国近代科学思想体系的形成历程

机械论是近代科学世界观的核心观点,中国古代科学转变为近代科学的突出标志就是接受了机械论思想.以中国传统的气本论为语境接受基础,以象数论为解释西学的中介手段,以接受西方机械论思想体系为目标,中国思想家形成了一套以气本论-象数论-机械论为特色的科学思想理论观点,反映了中国古代科学思想体系向近代科学思想体系转变的历程.     

试论科学哲学史上的反常

反常是指在科学理论发展过程中,科学认识主体(主要是科学家或科学工作者)在拒斥已有理论的前提下,对已有理论提出质疑的有待解决的科学问题.本文通过对弗@培根、波普、拉卡托斯、劳丹等人所理解的反常问题的历史考察,阐述了在科学理论发展中反常问题的基本特征.     

Theory of science and history of science

The article uses an interesting discussion between historian and philosopher of science as point of departure for a brief examination of the special task of the sociology of sciences. Both historian and philosopher proceed according to certain ritualised conventions. They take it for granted that it is possible, today as in the seventeenth century, to work out a theory of science by concentrating on one science only, on theoretical physics. They are unable to come to grips with the diversification of sciences as a theoretical problem. The growth of a single science itself is treated by them as if it were an absolutely autonomous social development. A sociological theory of sciences has to take account of the observable advance of scientific knowledge into areas of the universe that were previously unknown or inaccessible to scientific exploration. It has to take account for instance of the emergence of biological and social sciences both as a science-immanent and a science-transcendent problem. Philosophers and historians of science have constructed a seemingly impenetrable conceptual wall between immanent and transcendent developments. According to them, ‘internal’ history of a science can be treated as independent of ‘external’ history. The article indicates that this is part of a professional ideology. By claiming absolute autonomy for one's subject matter one tries to secure the absolute autonomy of one's profession. If that claim is abandoned the fashionable problem of continuities and discontinuities in the development of sciences appears in a different light. Neither discontinuity nor autonomy of a scientific development can ever be absolute. Its relative autonomy, however, can grow or diminish. That of physics, for instance, is at present noticeably greater than that of sociology. One may well ask why that is the case. That is the kind of problem which requires a sociological as distinct from a philosophical or historical investigation.     

On the production and structuring of scientific knowledges

Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has contained within it a series of discrepancies, which combine to render impossible the actual theorising of changes in scientific knowledges, and their foundation in a break with a previous theoretical ideology. This paper is a close textual investigation which shows the precise nature of these discrepancies, how they mutually support each other in a discourse founded in a positivist epistemology continually undermined by attempts to theorise discontinuity in knowledges. The outcome of this is that changes in scientific knowledges appear irrational, for Kuhn presents no means with which such shifts can be thought.     

Paths between Positivism and Interpretivism: An Appraisal of Hay's Via Media

Hay's Political Analysis raises foundational issues for all social scientists, not least in its outline for a via media , or middle way, between positivist and interpretivist social science. In this view, social science should be firmly grounded in empirical study but take seriously the notion that there is no privileged vantage point from which to generate dispassionate knowledge claims about the social world. This article asks whether this apparent via media is coherent and meaningfully captures what it means to be doing positivist and interpretivist social science without, so to speak, conceding too much ground to the other approach.     

Political Science as a Broad Church: The Search for a Pluralist Discipline

In 1996 Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann published an edited collection of essays, A New Handbook of Political Science , that provides probably the best overview of the discipline of political science, at least as seen through the eyes of the mainstream of the profession. Goodin is an American working at the Australian National University, while Klingemann is a German working in Berlin. Nevertheless, their overview represents an American view of political science, which is hardly surprising as more than 75 per cent of living political scientists are American. Overall, they present a picture of the discipline as professional, pluralistic and improving rapidly. Here, we take issue with that view, not as an ambition, but as a reality. In contrast, we argue that political science, particularly US political science, is still dominated by a positivist epistemology and, particularly, by behaviouralist and rational choice approaches that are underpinned by that positivism. We begin by outlining Goodin and Klingemann's argument and critiquing it. Subsequently, we take issue with them empirically, using evidence drawn both from their own edited collection and an analysis of the contents of the two foremost US and UK journals; in the US the American Political Science Review , the American Political Science Association's main journal, and the American Journal of Political Science , and in the UK the British Journal of Political Science and Political Studies , the Political Studies Association's main journal. The methodology adopted is discussed below. In the last section, we consider the consequence of our findings for the future of political science in Britain.     

A Veteran's View of Science Education Today

Science education in our schools is fundamentally the same today as it was fifty years ago and the scientific method has not really changed. Good science teaching is defined as the never‐ending search for evidence, for objective data, which leads to truth, and the search for truth should be at the heart of education in all subjects at all levels, and teacher training should address this objective view point. Science in our schools is watered down with derivatives such as environmental education. Steps should be taken to increase the level of science content knowledge in schools and science teacher education. Additionally, the rules of the open market should be invoked to give science teachers the latitude to offer their services as other providers of professional services do, and receive compensation greater than they would as regular full‐time teachers. These issues are discussed with implications for policy.     

后现代语境中的马克思思想与我国现代性的理性诉求

对现代性及其负面效应的批判即问题意识和危机意识等是马克思思想和后现代主义的通话。马克思思想具有后现代的意蕴,但马克思不是后现代主义者,马克思哲学也不是后现代主义哲学,二者存在着本质的差别。我国正处于现代化进程中,应以马克思的现代性思想为导引,建构一种比传统社会确定了的价值更先进、克服了它们已经被认识到了的缺陷的现代性。