• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. A >Narrow and broad styles of scientific reasoning: A reply to O. Bueno
【24h】

Narrow and broad styles of scientific reasoning: A reply to O. Bueno

机译：科学推理的狭义和广泛风格：对O. Bueno的回复

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

In a recent paper, Otivio Bueno (2012) introduced a narrower understanding of Hacking's concept of styles of scientific reasoning. Although its ultimate goal is to serve a pluralist view of science, Bueno's proposal is a thought-provoking attempt at outlining a concept of style that would keep most of the original understanding's heuristic value, while providing some analytical grip on the specific details of particular scientific practices. In this reply, I consider solely this latter more proximate goal. More precisely, I assess whether or not Bueno's narrower understanding of styles could provide historians and philosophers of science with a workable unit to investigate particular transformations in scientific practices. While the author's proposal is certainly interesting overall, the usefulness of the unit it describes may be compromised by three shortcomings: 1° the extent to which the unit is meant to be narrower is indeterminate; 2° it does not improve much on the analytical capabilities of Hacking's concept; and 3° like Hacking's concept it is rather powerless to capture the dynamical character of particular scientific practices.
机译：在最近的一篇论文中，Otivio Bueno（2012）引入了对Hacking科学推理风格概念的狭义理解。尽管布宜诺斯艾利斯的最终目标是服务于多元化的科学观，但布宜诺斯艾利斯的提议是一种发人深省的尝试，概述了保留大多数原始理解的启发式价值的风格概念，同时提供了对特定科学的特定细节的分析性把握实践。在此答复中，我仅认为后者是更接近的目标。更准确地说，我评估了布宜诺州对风格的更狭understanding的理解是否可以为历史学家和科学哲学家提供一个可行的单元，以研究科学实践的特定转变。虽然作者的建议总体上肯定很有趣，但它描述的单元的实用性可能会因以下三个缺点而受到损害：1°表示单元要缩小的程度不确定。 2°并没有在Hacking概念的分析能力上提高太多；和3°一样，如Hacking的概念，要捕捉特定科学实践的动态特征是相当无能的。

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