Journal of Philosophical Investigations

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی


دکتری فلسفه، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران. ایران.


جریان‌های فلسفه علم بعد از دهه شصت میلادی، به شکل ویژه‌ای اصل تحقیق‌پذیری و همچنین باور به وجود یک روش‌‌‌‌‌ صریح و مطلق برای ارزیابی دعاوی مختلف علمی را کنار گذاشته‌اند. از سوی دیگر چنین انتقاداتی نقشی ویژه در شکل گرفتن یا اعتبار دادن به دعاوی مرتبط با امکان‌های دیگر علم، بطور خاص برنامه‌های علم بومی/دینی، داشته‌اند. نقش کانونی این تحولات، نقش مفروضات‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ غیرتجربی در فعالیت‌های علمی است. در این مقاله سعی شده دو نقد اصلی کوهن و کواین بر نگره‌های پوزیتیویستی بیان شود و سپس با فراهم آوردن یک چارچوب چهار سطحی برای فعالیت علمی، دامنة تأثیر و تبعات این نقدها در بحث "تعامل و مشارکت‌‌‌‌‌ مفروضات غیرتجربی در فعالیت علمی" از منظر معرفت‌شناختی تنقیح گردد. در این مقاله بیان می‌کنیم که با کنار گذاشتن اصل "تحقیق‌پذیری"، معیار آزمون تجربی از جمله به کل نظریه منتقل شده (کل‌گرایی تاییدی) و با کنار گذاشتن ایده روش صریح و الگوریتمیک علمی با "کثرت‌گرایی روش‌شناختی" رو به رو هستیم. تلاش شده تا نشان دهیم با فرض اعتبار نقدهای مرسوم، اگر چه سخت‌گیری پوزیتیویستی نارواست، با اینحال همچنان قیود مهمی بر سر تداخل گزاره‌های غیرتجربی‌‌‌‌‌ برخاسته از باورهای متافیزیکی، دینی و بومی در نظریه‌های علمی و امتزاج ارزش‌های غیرشناختی در داوری‌های علمی وجود دارد.



عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Non-Empirical Assumptions in Science and Its Consequences on the Idea of Local- Religious Science

نویسنده [English]

  • Amir Hajizadeh

PhD in philosophy, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran. İran.

چکیده [English]

The movements of philosophy of science after the sixties, in particular, have abandoned the principle of verificationism and the belief in an explicit and absolute method for evaluating various scientific claims. On the other hand, such criticisms have played a special role in shaping, or validating claims related to, possibilities of other kinds of science, in particular, local / religious science programs. The central role of these developments is the role of non-empirical assumptions in scientific activities. This article tries to express the two main critiques of Kuhn and Quine on positivist views and then, by providing a four-level framework for scientific activity, we analyze the scope and consequences of these critiques to find out its effect on the discussion of "the interaction and participation of non-empirical assumptions in scientific activity". In this article, we state that by abandoning the principle of "verificationism", the criterion of the experimental test, including the whole transferred theory (confirmation holism) and by abandoning the idea of the explicit algorithmic scientific method, we are faced with "methodological pluralism". Attempts have been made to show that, assuming the validity of conventional critiques, although positivist austerity is incorrect, there are still important constraints on the interplay of non-empirical propositions arising from metaphysical, religious, and indigenous beliefs in scientific theories and the incorporation of non-cognitive values into scientific judgments.  

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • non-empirical assumptions
  • Quine
  • Thomas Kuhn
  • Howard Sankey
  • local science
  • religious science
-   Bagheri, Khosrow. (2003) The identity of religious science, Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance Publications. (in Persian)
-   Bagheri, Khosrow. (2012) Theory of Religious Empirical Science, Tehran: Publishing Organization of the Board of Support for Theory, Criticism and Debate Chairs. (in Persian)
-   Carnap, R. (1967) Der logische Aufbau der Welt.Berlin: Weltkreis-Verlag, 1928; trans.  Rolf A. George as The Logical Structure of the World.London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
-   Carnap, R. (2011) Philosophy of Science, (Fourth Edition). Trans. Yousef Afifi. Tehran: Niloufar Publishing.
-   Hemple, C. G. (1950) “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning”. 11 Rev. Intern. de Philos. 41, pp. 41–63
-   Golshani، M. (2000) “How to Make Sense of ' Islamic Science'?” American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences،17(3). (in persian)
-   Golshani, M. (2001) “Science and philosophy”. Allameh Research Journal (2), pp. 247-256. (in persian)
-   Golshani, M. (2003-2004) “The Role of Metaphysics in Relating Science to Religion”. Letter of Science and Religion (21-24), pp. 29-36. (in persian)
-   Golshani, M. (2011a) An Analysis of the Philosophical Perspectives of Contemporary Physicists. Tehran: Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies. (in Persian)
-   Golshani, M. (2011) From Secular Science to Religious Science, (Fifth Edition). Tehran: Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies. (in persian)
-   Golshani, M. (2014) “Why Islamic science is meaningful and desirable”. Book Review, 72-73, pp. 207-238 (in persian)
-   Hassani, M.; Alipour, M.; Movahed Abtahi, M. (2011) Religious science; Views and Considerations (Second Edition) Qom: Sobhan. (in Persian)
-   Khosropanah, A. (2011a) “Judicial-ijtihad model in humanities”. Immortal Wisdom (19), pp. 29-66. (in Persian)
-   Khosropanah, A. (2011) “In Search of Indigenous Humanities”. Cultural Universe (299-300), pp. 26-27. (in Persian)
-   Kuhn، T. (1970a) “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.
-   Kuhn، T. (1970b) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Second ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-   Kuhn، T. (1977) The Essential Tension. Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-   Ladyman، J. (2002) Understanding Philosophy of Science. London & New York: Routledge.
-   Malekian, M. (2017) Thought Page. Retrieved from Iran Online: (in persian)
-   Malekian, M. (2007) “Science without history, without geography”. Reflection of Thought (87), pp. 7-13. (in Persian)
-   Paya, A. (2007) “Critical considerations of religious science and indigenous science”. Wisdom and Philosophy (10-11), pp. 39-76. (in Persian)
-   Quine, W. V. O. (2004) “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”. in Quintessence: Basic Readings from the Philosophy of W.V. Quine. (1951) Roger F. Gibson, ed. Cambridge, Mass. London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
-   Quine, W. V. O. (2004)“Epistemology Naturalized”. In Quintessence: Basic Readings from the Philosophy of W.V. Quine. (1969) Roger F. Gibson, ed. Cambridge, Mass. London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
-   Quine, W. V. O. (1992) Pursuit of Truth. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1990; revised edn.
-   Quine, W. V. O. (1995) From stimulus to Science. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
-   Sankey، H. (1997) Rationality، Relativism and Incommensurability. Aldershot: Ashgate.
-   Sankey، H. (2000) After Popper، Kuhn And Feyerabend. (N. Robert، & H. Sankey، Eds.) Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
-   Zibakalam, S. (2009) “The foot of the logicians was wooden: a reflection on reason, reasoning, and rationality”. Sura Andisheh (46-47), pp. 175-176. (in persian)
-   Zibakalam, S. (2016) “Indigenous theorizing and dilemmas and goals”. Methodology of Humanities (88), pp. 179-201. (in Persian)