|
摘要:经验与陈述的关系并非归纳或演绎的逻辑关系,因此科学的经验基础就构成一个难题。仅仅把科学看作命题体系的观点不能解决这个难题,同时经验主义的平台也不能提供任何通道。科学本质上是一种实践活动,惟有语用学和解释学的平台才能为这个难题提供解决方案。科学的实践性、公共性、主体间性、情境性为理解库恩的范式理论提供了线索:自然科学具有解释学的基础。劳斯进一步主张:自然科学本身就是解释学的事业,科学是不断重构的叙事。科学的解释学与客观主义形成对立,而这并不必然使科学滑入相对主义。伯恩斯坦提出了超越客观主义与相对主义的方案:解释学本身就为这种超越提供了资源,解释学循环恰恰对科学范式的开放性提出了要求。 Abstraction: The connection between experience and proposition is not logical, that is, neither reduction nor deduction. Then the empirical base of nature science becomes a problem. It can not be resolved by regarding nature sciences as a proposition system. In addition, the empiricist platform can not give any approach. Science is essentially a practice, and only the platform offered by Pragmatics and Hermeneutics can point out an approach. The introduction of practicality, community, intersubjectivity and context provides a clew for understanding of Kuhn’s paradigm theory:natural science has a hermeneutic base. J.Rouse has gone farther: natural science is itself a hermeneutic enterprise, and it is a narrative being reconstructed constantly. Hermeneutics of science is opposed to objectivism of science, which does not necessarily slide into relativism. Bernstein has offered a project to transcend objectivism and relativism: Hermeneutics itself provides the resources for this transcending, and, so to speak, hermeneutic circle precisely calls the openness of paradigms of science. |