对迈克尔·克林顿的《论本德对模型的定位：走向一场关于护理科学中的法律、理论、出现和机制的哲学辩论》的回应。

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q1 NURSING

Nursing Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-22 DOI:10.1111/nup.12463

Miriam Bender

{"title":"对迈克尔·克林顿的《论本德对模型的定位：走向一场关于护理科学中的法律、理论、出现和机制的哲学辩论》的回应。","authors":"Miriam Bender","doi":"10.1111/nup.12463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"My purpose in this short response to Clinton's interesting article On Bender's orientation to models: Towards a philosophical debate on covering laws, theory, emergence and mechanisms in nursing science, which is published in this issue, is not to provide any counterargument to Clinton's interpretation of my own argument; readers are welcome to interrogate both articles at their leisure and make their own conclusions. What I will do instead is provide a brief critical assessment of my own (il)logic re bringing in the notion of mechanism as conceived by Machamer, Darden and Craver into an argument for models versus theories as a carrier of nursing knowledge.","PeriodicalId":49724,"journal":{"name":"Nursing Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A response to Michael Clinton's On Bender's orientation to models: Towards a philosophical debate on covering laws, theory, emergence and mechanisms in nursing science.\",\"authors\":\"Miriam Bender\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nup.12463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"My purpose in this short response to Clinton's interesting article On Bender's orientation to models: Towards a philosophical debate on covering laws, theory, emergence and mechanisms in nursing science, which is published in this issue, is not to provide any counterargument to Clinton's interpretation of my own argument; readers are welcome to interrogate both articles at their leisure and make their own conclusions. What I will do instead is provide a brief critical assessment of my own (il)logic re bringing in the notion of mechanism as conceived by Machamer, Darden and Craver into an argument for models versus theories as a carrier of nursing knowledge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49724,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nursing Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nursing Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12463\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.12463","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

我对克林顿在本期发表的一篇有趣的文章《本德对模型的定位：走向一场关于护理科学中的法律、理论、出现和机制的哲学辩论》的简短回应，并不是为了反驳克林顿对我自己论点的解释；欢迎读者在闲暇时仔细阅读这两篇文章，并得出自己的结论。相反，我要做的是对我自己的（il）逻辑进行简短的批判性评估，将Machamer、Darden和Craver设想的机制概念重新引入作为护理知识载体的模型与理论的争论中。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A response to Michael Clinton's On Bender's orientation to models: Towards a philosophical debate on covering laws, theory, emergence and mechanisms in nursing science.

My purpose in this short response to Clinton's interesting article On Bender's orientation to models: Towards a philosophical debate on covering laws, theory, emergence and mechanisms in nursing science, which is published in this issue, is not to provide any counterargument to Clinton's interpretation of my own argument; readers are welcome to interrogate both articles at their leisure and make their own conclusions. What I will do instead is provide a brief critical assessment of my own (il)logic re bringing in the notion of mechanism as conceived by Machamer, Darden and Craver into an argument for models versus theories as a carrier of nursing knowledge.

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

Nursing Philosophy NURSING-

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

9.10%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Nursing Philosophy provides a forum for discussion of philosophical issues in nursing. These focus on questions relating to the nature of nursing and to the phenomena of key relevance to it. For example, any understanding of what nursing is presupposes some conception of just what nurses are trying to do when they nurse. But what are the ends of nursing? Are they to promote health, prevent disease, promote well-being, enhance autonomy, relieve suffering, or some combination of these? How are these ends are to be met? What kind of knowledge is needed in order to nurse? Practical, theoretical, aesthetic, moral, political, ''intuitive'' or some other? Papers that explore other aspects of philosophical enquiry and analysis of relevance to nursing (and any other healthcare or social care activity) are also welcome and might include, but not be limited to, critical discussions of the work of nurse theorists who have advanced philosophical claims (e.g., Benner, Benner and Wrubel, Carper, Schrok, Watson, Parse and so on) as well as critical engagement with philosophers (e.g., Heidegger, Husserl, Kuhn, Polanyi, Taylor, MacIntyre and so on) whose work informs health care in general and nursing in particular.