视角与元视角:复杂系统认识论中的语境与层次

IF 1.5 1区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Ragnar van der Merwe
{"title":"视角与元视角:复杂系统认识论中的语境与层次","authors":"Ragnar van der Merwe","doi":"10.1007/s13194-025-00641-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>For some post-structuralist complexity theorists, there are no epistemic <i>meta</i>-perspectives from where to judge between different epistemic perspectives toward complex systems. In this paper, I argue that these theorists face a dilemma because they argue against meta-perspectives from just such a meta-perspective. In fact, when we <i>understand</i> two or more different perspectives, we seem to unavoidably adopt a meta-perspective to analyse, compare, and judge between those perspectives. I further argue that meta-perspectives can be evaluated and judged from <i>meta</i>-meta-perspectives, and so on. This suggests an epistemic hierarchy. Perspectives, meta-perspectives, meta-meta-perspectives, etc. can be ranked according to the degree to which they confer understanding. I also explore what scope my thesis might have outside the philosophy of complexity by applying it to the sociology of science. </p>","PeriodicalId":48832,"journal":{"name":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perspectives and meta-perspectives: context versus hierarchy in the epistemology of complex systems\",\"authors\":\"Ragnar van der Merwe\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13194-025-00641-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>For some post-structuralist complexity theorists, there are no epistemic <i>meta</i>-perspectives from where to judge between different epistemic perspectives toward complex systems. In this paper, I argue that these theorists face a dilemma because they argue against meta-perspectives from just such a meta-perspective. In fact, when we <i>understand</i> two or more different perspectives, we seem to unavoidably adopt a meta-perspective to analyse, compare, and judge between those perspectives. I further argue that meta-perspectives can be evaluated and judged from <i>meta</i>-meta-perspectives, and so on. This suggests an epistemic hierarchy. Perspectives, meta-perspectives, meta-meta-perspectives, etc. can be ranked according to the degree to which they confer understanding. I also explore what scope my thesis might have outside the philosophy of complexity by applying it to the sociology of science. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal for Philosophy of Science\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal for Philosophy of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00641-9\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal for Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-025-00641-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于一些后结构主义复杂性理论家来说,对于复杂系统的不同认知视角,没有一个认知元视角可以用来判断。在本文中,我认为这些理论家面临两难境地,因为他们正是从这样的元视角来反对元视角。事实上,当我们理解两个或更多不同的视角时,我们似乎不可避免地采用元视角来分析、比较和判断这些视角。我进一步论证了元视角可以通过元视角来评价和判断,等等。这表明了一种认知层次。视角、元视角、元-元视角等可以根据它们赋予理解的程度进行排序。我还通过将我的论文应用于科学社会学来探索它在复杂性哲学之外的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perspectives and meta-perspectives: context versus hierarchy in the epistemology of complex systems

For some post-structuralist complexity theorists, there are no epistemic meta-perspectives from where to judge between different epistemic perspectives toward complex systems. In this paper, I argue that these theorists face a dilemma because they argue against meta-perspectives from just such a meta-perspective. In fact, when we understand two or more different perspectives, we seem to unavoidably adopt a meta-perspective to analyse, compare, and judge between those perspectives. I further argue that meta-perspectives can be evaluated and judged from meta-meta-perspectives, and so on. This suggests an epistemic hierarchy. Perspectives, meta-perspectives, meta-meta-perspectives, etc. can be ranked according to the degree to which they confer understanding. I also explore what scope my thesis might have outside the philosophy of complexity by applying it to the sociology of science. 

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal for Philosophy of Science
European Journal for Philosophy of Science HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
13.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The European Journal for Philosophy of Science publishes groundbreaking works that can deepen understanding of the concepts and methods of the sciences, as they explore increasingly many facets of the world we live in. It is of direct interest to philosophers of science coming from different perspectives, as well as scientists, citizens and policymakers. The journal is interested in articles from all traditions and all backgrounds, as long as they engage with the sciences in a constructive, and critical, way. The journal represents the various longstanding European philosophical traditions engaging with the sciences, but welcomes articles from every part of the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信