论文部分内容阅读
人们对科学客观性有众多不同的用法和标准。作为科学哲学和科学史界定客观性概念的一种主要进路,对客观性不同用法的分类学研究面临着诸多困境。哈金和阿克斯特尔将这些困难解释为客观性可能是具有家族相似性的概念;并且哈金认为人们甚至完全可以在不提及客观性概念的情况下讨论科学客观性相关问题,客观性概念是多余的,“让我们别谈客观性了”。哈金和阿克斯特尔的观点是对分类学研究所面临困境的猜想性解释。不基于他们的猜测性解释,对客观性不同用法分类的完备性、不同用法间的对立性,以及不同用法间的选择的分析显示,分类学研究进路必然面临困境。通过分类学研究界定客观性是一条死胡同。
There are many different uses and standards of scientific objectivity. As a major approach to define the concept of objectivity in the philosophy of science and history of science, taxonomy research on the different uses of objectivity is faced with many difficulties. Harkin and Axelt interpret these difficulties as objectivity as concepts that may have family similarities; and Harkin argues that one can even discuss science-objectivity-related issues without even mentioning the notion of objectivity Sexual concepts are superfluous, “Let’s not talk about objectivity.” Harkin and Axelt’s point of view is a conjectural explanation of the plight of taxonomists. Not based on their speculative explanations, the completeness of the classification of different usage of objectivity, the opposition between different usage, and the choice between different usage shows that the taxonomy research path inevitably faces difficulties. Objectivity through taxonomic research is a dead end.