 |
English
|
正體中文
|
简体中文
|
Post-Print筆數 : 27 |
Items with full text/Total items : 113648/144635 (79%)
Visitors : 51612403
Online Users : 594
|
|
|
Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/100099
|
| Title: | I. Lakatos, a Methodologist of Research Programmes or a Phi-losopher of Political Practices? |
| Other Titles: | 拉卡透斯：一個研究綱領方法論者，或是一個政治實踐的哲學家？ |
| Authors: | 苑舉正
Yuann, Jeu-Jenq |
| Keywords: | 拉卡透斯;波普;孔恩;費耶若本;哈金;科學研究綱領方法論
I. Lakatos;K. Popper;T. Kuhn;P. Feyerabend;I. Hacking;Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes |
| Date: | 2007-07 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-08-11 15:46:32 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 在科學哲學的領域中，拉卡透斯均主要視作為一位「科學研究綱領方法論者」。在這個觀點中，拉氏方法論不但超過波普的否證方法論，也融入孔恩科學哲學中歷史進路理的重點，即對於科學實踐的強調。從理論的角度而言，將拉氏方法論當作波普與孔恩哲學「修正綜合」的觀點，是一個相當普遍的看法。然而，因為這個看法中過於強烈地顯現波普理性主義形象的緣故，所以這個「形象」遭遇費耶阿本批判為缺乏一致性的方法論。費氏的批判中提出如下問題：為什麼拉氏會在缺乏證成理性主義的情況下，堅持一個「理性主義」的立場呢？這個問題的答案，似乎與拉氏個人信念有關，而若是欲探討這個關係，則必須先研究拉氏定居英國之前的學術背景。的確，許多研究指出，拉氏流亡英國前的學術背景，均曾隱密式地融入其哲學中，尤其是「科學研究綱領方法論」。在這些研究中，哈金的研究論文是一個重要的代表。根據哈金的詮釋，拉氏哲學中，除了英國部分之外，還有一個「黑格爾」部分。哈金證實，在「科學研究綱領方法論」之中，有許多理念與在匈牙利流行的那種強調理論與實踐之辯證關係的哲學類似。當注意拉氏哲學中包含辯證法的同時，我們依然強調拉氏哲學中「批判理性」這一受波普哲學影響的部分。我們因而論證，「辯證方法」與「批判理性」兩者均為拉氏「方法論」中的關鍵理念。兩者均抱持從動態歷程中認知概念外，其結合亦能展示科學歷史的理性建構。因而，我們結論說，這個展示不僅為拉氏個人信念，也是建立在統一理論與實踐之上的科學進步之結果。
In the field of philosophy of science, I. Lakatos is first of all considered a methodologist of scientific research programmes. Lakatos’ methodology (abbreviated in this paper, MSRP) not only supersedes that of Popper’s falsificationism, but also incorporates the essential part of T. Kuhn’s historical approach, i.e., scientific practices into its formation. Theoretically speaking, it is rather common to portray Lakatos’ philosophy as a modified combination of Popper and Kuhn. However, due to its rationalistic image implanted from Popper’s critical rationalism, this combination has been severely criticized by P. Feyerabend for lacking consistency. Feyerabend’s criticism let alone being successful or not, points out the following question: why would Lakatos insist on a rationalistic position even without a persuasive argument to defend it? The answer to this question is likely to be one which has something to do with Lakatos’ personal conviction linking with his academic background back to the time before his settlement in England. Indeed, there are researches demonstrating that what Lakatos did before exiling to England was secretively incorporated into his philosophy in general and MSRP in particular. Among these researches, I. Hacking’s paper on Lakatos’ philosophy of science holds a role of crucial importance. According to Hacking, other than the English part, Lakatos’ philosophy contains a Hegelian part. Hacking vindicates that the dialectical development of theory and practice prevailing in Hungary dominates much of Lakatos’ ideas consisting in MSRP. While noticing this role of the dialectical method in Lakatos’ philosophy, we also retain the role of critical rationality long exercised by Lakatos and fortified by his acquaintance of Popper. We hence put forward an argument sustaining the combination of the dialectic method and the critical rationality in Lakatos’ MSRP. The combination holds all things dynamically and thus demonstrates the rational construction of the history of science. The demonstration is therefore not merely a matter of Lakatos’ personal conviction, but also an outcome of scientific progress established on the unity of theoretical and practical rationality. |
| Relation: | 政治大學哲學學報, 18, 101-140
The national Chengchi university philosophical |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [政治大學哲學學報 THCI Core] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 18-101-140.pdf | | 351Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 520 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.
2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(
nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(
nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
