...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal for general philosophy of science >Scientific Progress, Understanding, and Knowledge: Reply to Park
【24h】

Scientific Progress, Understanding, and Knowledge: Reply to Park

机译：科学进步，理解和知识：回复Park

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Dellsén (2016) has recently argued for an understanding-based account of scientific progress, the noetic account, according to which science (or a particular scientific discipline) makes cognitive progress precisely when it increases our understanding of some aspect of the world. I contrast this account with Bird’s (2007, 2015); epistemic account, according to which such progress is made precisely when our knowledge of the world is increased or accumulated. In a recent paper, Park (2017) criticizes various aspects of my account and his arguments in favor of the noetic account as against Bird’s epistemic account. This paper responds to Park’s objections. An important upshot of the paper is that we should distinguish between episodes that constitute and promote scientific progress, and evaluate account of scientific progress in terms of how they classify different episodes with respect to these categories.
机译：戴尔森（Dellsén，2016）最近主张对科学进步进行基于理解的解释，即对理论的解释，据此，科学（或特定的科学学科）正是在它增进了我们对世界某些方面的理解后才做出认知进步的。我将此说法与伯德（2007，2015）进行了对比；认识论的解释，据此，当我们对世界的了解增加或积累时，就取得了这样的进步。帕克（Park）（2017）在最近的一篇论文中批评了我的叙述的各个方面，以及他的论点，主张主张理性的叙述，而不是伯德的认识论的叙述。本文回应了Park的反对意见。本文的一个重要成果是，我们应该区分构成和促进科学进步的事件，并根据它们如何对这些事件对不同事件进行分类来评估对科学进步的解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号