康德对科学的实用主义解释:确保研究路径的经验条件。

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Annals of Science Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-04 DOI:10.1080/00033790.2025.2584332
Thomas Sturm, Larissa Wallner
{"title":"康德对科学的实用主义解释:确保研究路径的经验条件。","authors":"Thomas Sturm, Larissa Wallner","doi":"10.1080/00033790.2025.2584332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We provide a reconstruction of Kant's empirical-pragmatic account of science, focusing on psychological, social, and historical conditions that 'pragmatically' promote or hinder the advancement of science. Our novel reconstruction offers a realistic portrayal of Kant's view. Part 1 claims that he presents a differentiated and dynamic account of research. Part 2 looks at psychological conditions, beginning with Kant's analysis of cognitive faculties (2.1), and the distinction between higher and lower faculties (2.2). Then, we turn to layers of scientific cognition: (2.3) observation, (2.4) imagination, (2.5) 'methodical meditation', and (2.6) 'sagacity', the talent for scientific discovery. Part 3 addresses biological, political, and historical conditions that hinder the development of science: mortality, lack of liberty, and 'barbarism'. We explain how Kant conceptualizes science as a collective historical process promoting human flourishing (3.1). To cope with individual limits, Kant demands to divide scientific labour between (3.2) kinds of minds and (3.3) disciplines. Section (3.4) treats his views on truth and testimony as crucial for science. In our conclusion, part 4, we show how Kant thinks the history of science ought to be studied, how his pragmatic approach relates to his claims about reason's role in scientific progress, and what research questions emerge next.</p>","PeriodicalId":8086,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Science","volume":" ","pages":"781-811"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kant's pragmatic account of science: empirical conditions for securing the path of research.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Sturm, Larissa Wallner\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00033790.2025.2584332\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We provide a reconstruction of Kant's empirical-pragmatic account of science, focusing on psychological, social, and historical conditions that 'pragmatically' promote or hinder the advancement of science. Our novel reconstruction offers a realistic portrayal of Kant's view. Part 1 claims that he presents a differentiated and dynamic account of research. Part 2 looks at psychological conditions, beginning with Kant's analysis of cognitive faculties (2.1), and the distinction between higher and lower faculties (2.2). Then, we turn to layers of scientific cognition: (2.3) observation, (2.4) imagination, (2.5) 'methodical meditation', and (2.6) 'sagacity', the talent for scientific discovery. Part 3 addresses biological, political, and historical conditions that hinder the development of science: mortality, lack of liberty, and 'barbarism'. We explain how Kant conceptualizes science as a collective historical process promoting human flourishing (3.1). To cope with individual limits, Kant demands to divide scientific labour between (3.2) kinds of minds and (3.3) disciplines. Section (3.4) treats his views on truth and testimony as crucial for science. In our conclusion, part 4, we show how Kant thinks the history of science ought to be studied, how his pragmatic approach relates to his claims about reason's role in scientific progress, and what research questions emerge next.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"781-811\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2025.2584332\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/12/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2025.2584332","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们重建了康德的经验-实用主义科学解释,重点关注“实用主义”促进或阻碍科学进步的心理、社会和历史条件。我们的小说重构为康德的观点提供了一个现实的写照。第1部分声称,他提出了一个差异化的和动态的研究帐户。第二部分着眼于心理状况,从康德对认知能力的分析(2.1)开始,以及高级和低级能力之间的区别(2.2)。然后,我们转向科学认知的层次:(2.3)观察,(2.4)想象,(2.5)“有条理的冥想”,(2.6)“睿智”,即科学发现的才能。第三部分讨论阻碍科学发展的生物、政治和历史条件:死亡、缺乏自由和“野蛮”。我们解释康德如何将科学概念化为促进人类繁荣的集体历史过程(3.1)。为了克服个体的局限性,康德要求在(3.2)头脑的种类和(3.3)学科之间划分科学劳动。第3.4节将他对真理和见证的看法视为科学的关键。在我们的结论部分,第4部分,我们展示了康德认为应该如何研究科学史,他的实用主义方法如何与他关于理性在科学进步中的作用的主张联系起来,以及接下来出现的研究问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Kant's pragmatic account of science: empirical conditions for securing the path of research.

We provide a reconstruction of Kant's empirical-pragmatic account of science, focusing on psychological, social, and historical conditions that 'pragmatically' promote or hinder the advancement of science. Our novel reconstruction offers a realistic portrayal of Kant's view. Part 1 claims that he presents a differentiated and dynamic account of research. Part 2 looks at psychological conditions, beginning with Kant's analysis of cognitive faculties (2.1), and the distinction between higher and lower faculties (2.2). Then, we turn to layers of scientific cognition: (2.3) observation, (2.4) imagination, (2.5) 'methodical meditation', and (2.6) 'sagacity', the talent for scientific discovery. Part 3 addresses biological, political, and historical conditions that hinder the development of science: mortality, lack of liberty, and 'barbarism'. We explain how Kant conceptualizes science as a collective historical process promoting human flourishing (3.1). To cope with individual limits, Kant demands to divide scientific labour between (3.2) kinds of minds and (3.3) disciplines. Section (3.4) treats his views on truth and testimony as crucial for science. In our conclusion, part 4, we show how Kant thinks the history of science ought to be studied, how his pragmatic approach relates to his claims about reason's role in scientific progress, and what research questions emerge next.

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
Annals of Science
Annals of Science 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Science , launched in 1936, publishes work on the history of science, technology and medicine, covering developments from classical antiquity to the late 20th century. The Journal has a global reach, both in terms of the work that it publishes, and also in terms of its readership. The editors particularly welcome submissions from authors in Asia, Africa and South America. Each issue contains research articles, and a comprehensive book reviews section, including essay reviews on a group of books on a broader level. Articles are published in both English and French, and the Journal welcomes proposals for special issues on relevant topics. The Editors and Publisher are committed to supporting early career researchers, and award an annual prize to the best submission from current doctoral students, or those awarded a doctorate in the past four years.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书