透视科学现实主义

IF 1 4区 综合性期刊 Q3 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Rafael Ambríz González, L. Bortolotti
{"title":"透视科学现实主义","authors":"Rafael Ambríz González, L. Bortolotti","doi":"10.1080/03080188.2022.2156150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, we offer a brief overview of the debate between realism and anti-realism in the philosophy of science. On the background of that debate, we consider two recently developed approaches aimed at vindicating realist intuitions while acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge. Perspectivalists explain disagreement in science without giving up the idea that currently accepted scientific theories describe reality largely accurately: they posit the existence of different perspectives within which scientific claims can be produced and tested. The integrative approach instead encourages researchers to embrace pluralism: conflicting frameworks and methodologies can be integrated when new knowledge is gained. In the natural and human sciences, researchers sometimes behave as if perspectivism is true; at other times, they hope for a reconciliation between conflicting frameworks and believe that this can be achieved by progressively filling knowledge gaps.","PeriodicalId":50352,"journal":{"name":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","volume":"48 1","pages":"299 - 310"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting scientific realism into perspective\",\"authors\":\"Rafael Ambríz González, L. Bortolotti\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03080188.2022.2156150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this paper, we offer a brief overview of the debate between realism and anti-realism in the philosophy of science. On the background of that debate, we consider two recently developed approaches aimed at vindicating realist intuitions while acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge. Perspectivalists explain disagreement in science without giving up the idea that currently accepted scientific theories describe reality largely accurately: they posit the existence of different perspectives within which scientific claims can be produced and tested. The integrative approach instead encourages researchers to embrace pluralism: conflicting frameworks and methodologies can be integrated when new knowledge is gained. In the natural and human sciences, researchers sometimes behave as if perspectivism is true; at other times, they hope for a reconciliation between conflicting frameworks and believe that this can be achieved by progressively filling knowledge gaps.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"299 - 310\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2156150\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interdisciplinary Science Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2156150","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对科学哲学中实在论与反实在论之争进行了简要概述。在这场辩论的背景下,我们考虑了两种最近发展起来的方法,它们旨在为现实主义直觉辩护,同时承认科学知识的局限性。透视主义者在解释科学中的分歧时,并没有放弃目前公认的科学理论在很大程度上准确地描述现实的观点:他们假设存在不同的观点,在这些观点中,科学主张可以产生和检验。相反,综合方法鼓励研究人员拥抱多元化:当获得新知识时,可以整合相互冲突的框架和方法。在自然科学和人文科学中,研究人员有时表现得好像透视主义是正确的;在其他时候,他们希望在相互冲突的框架之间达成和解,并相信这可以通过逐步填补知识空白来实现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Putting scientific realism into perspective
ABSTRACT In this paper, we offer a brief overview of the debate between realism and anti-realism in the philosophy of science. On the background of that debate, we consider two recently developed approaches aimed at vindicating realist intuitions while acknowledging the limitations of scientific knowledge. Perspectivalists explain disagreement in science without giving up the idea that currently accepted scientific theories describe reality largely accurately: they posit the existence of different perspectives within which scientific claims can be produced and tested. The integrative approach instead encourages researchers to embrace pluralism: conflicting frameworks and methodologies can be integrated when new knowledge is gained. In the natural and human sciences, researchers sometimes behave as if perspectivism is true; at other times, they hope for a reconciliation between conflicting frameworks and believe that this can be achieved by progressively filling knowledge gaps.
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
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 综合性期刊-综合性期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
20
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interdisciplinary Science Reviews is a quarterly journal that aims to explore the social, philosophical and historical interrelations of the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, medicine and technology with the social sciences, humanities and arts.
×
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