• 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 >Another parting of the ways: Intersubjectivity and the objectivity of science
【24h】

Another parting of the ways: Intersubjectivity and the objectivity of science

机译：方式的另一部分：主体间性与科学的客观性

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

Michael Friedman defines the scientific enterprise as an ongoing project with a dynamics of reason that persists through scientific revolutions: The coherence and continuity of science owes to a communicative rationality that is operative at all times. It assures us of our shared objective world by transforming subjective points of view into intersubjectively binding agreements. Though it takes a very broad approach epistemologically, this conception of science may yet be too narrow in respect to notions of objectivity. It excludes a prominent mode of knowledge production that might be called technoscientific. This exclusion becomes particularly evident in Friedman's discussion of Heidegger as a critic of Cassirer and Carnap and as a critic of objectivity as "universal validity" of scientific propositions. If one tends to Heidegger's own account of objectivity, one encounters a non-propositional notion of truth. Science is seen as a technology that brings forth phenomena and processes. Accordingly, even where modern physics appears to be concerned primarily with the formulation of theories and the testing of hypotheses, it uses mathematical and representational techniques to conceive and create the modern world. And more powerfully than intersubjective agreement, technologies assure us of the unity and objectivity of our simultaneously social as well as natural world. There may be good reasons to hold fast to the close affiliation of communicative rationality, science, and enlightenment. However, to the extent that it turns a blind eye to technoscientific knowledge production and the technological character of science, a philosophy of technoscience needs to develop an alternative perspective on questions of objectivity, explanation, inference, or validation.
机译：迈克尔·弗里德曼（Michael Friedman）将科学事业定义为一个正在进行的项目，它具有通过科学革命而得以持续的理性动力：科学的连贯性和连续性归因于始终有效的交流理性。通过将主观观点转变为主体间具有约束力的协议，它确保了我们共同的客观世界。尽管在认识论上采取了非常广泛的方法，但是关于客观性的概念，这种科学概念可能还太狭窄。它排除了可以称为技术科学的知识生产的显着模式。在弗里德曼关于海德格尔作为卡西尔和卡尔纳普的批评者以及作为科学命题的“普遍有效性”的客观性的批评者的讨论中，这种排斥尤其明显。如果一个人倾向于海德格尔自己对客观性的解释，那么就会遇到一个非命题的真理概念。科学被视为带来现象和过程的技术。因此，即使现代物理学似乎主要关注理论的提出和假设的检验，它也使用数学和表示技术来构想和创造现代世界。比主体间协议更强大的是，技术可以确保我们同时存在的社会世界和自然世界的统一性和客观性。可能有充分的理由坚持与交流理性，科学和启蒙的紧密联系。但是，在某种程度上，它对技术科学知识的产生和科学的技术特性视而不见，因此，技术科学哲学需要就客观性，解释性，推理性或验证性问题提出另一种观点。

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