نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده

دکتر فلسفه تطبیقی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران

10.30465/ps.2021.34415.1492

چکیده

کایلی استنفورد چالش جدیدی پیش روی واقع گرایی علمی قرار داده است که به استقرایِ بدبینانة جدید شهرت یافته است. طبق استدلال وی، برای هر نظریه علمی، " نظریات بدیل نامتصوری" وجود دارند که از دامنه درک دانشمندان فراتر می‌روند؛ بنابراین هیچ گاه نمی‌توان نسبت به هویاتِ مشاهده ناپذیرِ نظریات تلقی واقع گرایانه داشت. در این مقاله تلاش می‌شود با تاکید بر همگرایی نظریات موفق در تاریخ علم، از واقع گرایی علمی در مقابل استدلالِ استنفورد دفاع کنیم. این مقاله بر این نکته تاکید دارد که طبق استقرای بدبینانه جدید، با توجه به تعداد نامحدود نظریه‌های بدیلِ نامتصور در قبال هر نظریه موفقی، احتمالِ "تطابق" و "وحدت یافتنِ" نظریات مستقل بسیار بعید خواهد بود. در حالیکه در تاریخ علم، شاهد نمونه‌های مکرر در پیوند یافتنِ نظریات موفق هستیم. همچنین تلاش می‌کنیم از ایده همگرایی در برابر نقدهای مرسوم دفاع کنیم.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Defending scientific realism against the "new pessimistic induction"

نویسنده [English]

  • amir haji zade

PhD in Comparative Philosophy, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran

چکیده [English]

Kyle Stanford poses a new challenge to scientific realism, known as the new pessimistic induction. According to him, for every scientific theory, there are "unconceived alternative theories" that go beyond the understanding of scientists; Therefore, one can never be realistic about the unobservable entities of theories. This article tries to defend scientific realism against Stanford's argument by emphasizing the convergence of successful theories in the history of science. This article emphasizes that under the new pessimistic induction, given the unlimited number of unconceived alternative theories to any successful theory, the possibility of "matching" and "unifying" independent theories will be very unlikely. Whereas in the history of science, we see frequent examples of successful theories being linked. We also try to defend the idea of convergence against critiques.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Kyle Stanford
  • Unconceived Alternative Theories
  • Pessimistic Induction
  • Scientific Realism
  • convergence
پوپر، ک (1375). حدس‌ها و ابطال‌ها، رشد شناخت علمی. مترجم احمد آرام. چاپ سوم. تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار
Blumenthal, Geoffrey &Ladyman, James. (2017). The development of problems within the phlogiston theories, 1766–1791, Foundations of Chemistry volume 19, pages241–280
 
Devitt, Michael. (2011). Are Unconceived Alternatives a Problem for Scientific Realism?, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, volume 42, issue 2
 
Duhem, P. (1982). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. USA: Princeton University Press
 
Einstein A (2001) Relativity the special and the general theory (trans Lawson RW). Routledge, London
 
Kitcher, Philip. (1993). Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy, Philosophical Review.110: 151–197.
 
Kuhn, T. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2th ed. USA: University of Chicago Press, first edition 1962
 
Kuhn, T. (1977). The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and
Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 
Kuhn, T. (1970). Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research? In I. L. Musgrave (Ed.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 1–23). London: Cambridge University Press.
 
Laudan, Larry. (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism, Philosophy of Science. Vol. 48, No. 1 (Mar., 1981), pp. 19-49
 
Merton, Robert K. (1937). The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press
 
Mizrahi, M. (2016a). Historical Inductions, Unconceived Alternatives, and Unconceived Objection, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 47 (1): 59-68.
 
Ogburn, w. & Thomas, D. (1922). Are Inventions Inevitable? A Note on Social Evolution, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Mar., 1922), pp. 83-98
 
Ruhmkorff, S. (2011).Some Difficulties for the Problem of Unconceived Alternative, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 78, No. 5: 875-886
 
Rosen, Edward. (1985). The Dissolution of the Solid Celestial Spheres. Journal of the History of Ideas Vol. 46, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1985), pp. 13-31 (19 pages)
 
Stanford, P. Kyle. (2001). Refusing the Devil's Bargain: What Kind of Underdetermination Should We Take Seriously? Philosophy of Science, Vol. 68, No. 3, Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers (Sep., 2001), pp.S1-S12
 
Stanford, P. Kyle. (2006). Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 
Stanford, P. Kyle. (2015). Unconceived alternatives and conservatism in science: the impact of rofessionalization, peer-review, and Big Science. Synthese:1-18 (2015)
 
 Stanford, Kyle.  (2006b). Darwin's Pangenesis and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives,
 
 
Sklar, L. (1981). Do Unborn Hypotheses Have Rights?, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62: 17–29.
 
 
Saatsi,Juha. (2019). Historical Inductions, Old and New.Juha Saatsi, Synthese 196 (10):3979-3993.
 
Saatsi,Juha. (2017). Replacing Recipe Realism, Synthese 194 (9):3233-3244.
 
Van Fraassen, Bas. (1980). The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press