Journal of Philosophical Investigations

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی

نویسنده

دکتری فلسفه، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

چکیده

وحدت یا عدم وحدت علم یکی از مسائل مهم فلسفی در قرن بیستم بوده‌‌است. یکی از مهم‌‌ترین پاسخ‌‌ها به مسئله وحدت علم از سوی تقلیل‌‌گرایان پیشنهاد شده‌‌است. مقاله پیش‌‌رو بر دو نمونه برجسته از چنین رویکردهایی متمرکز شده‌‌است. نمونه اول از جنبش فلسفی پوزیتیویسم منطقی و نمونه دوم از جنبش‌‌های فلسفی پساپوزیتیویستی انتخاب شده‌‌است. نشان داده‌‌ایم که تقلیل‌‌های علی‌‌الادعا موفق در علم، موجب پیدایش این ایده شده‌‌است که پاسخ مسئله وحدت علم از طریقِ تقلیل امکان‌‌پذیر است. سپس استدلال کرده‌‌ایم که رویکرد تقلیل‌‌گرا اساساً ناکارآمد، نابسنده و نادرست است. تقلیل‌‌گرایی ناکارآمد است زیرا به ساده‌‌سازی مفهومی و هستی‌‌شناختی کمک نمی‌‌کند. نابسنده است زیرا اولاً تنوع هستی‌‌شناختی فعالیت‌‌های علمیِ اساساً متفاوت را پوشش نمی‌‌دهد، و ثانیاً پاسخ مناسبی به نیازِ تبیینی در خصوصِ چرایی بنیادی بودنِ یک لایه هستی‌‌شناختی و معرفت‌‌شناختی نسبت به سایر لایه‌‌ها را ارائه نمی‌‌دهد. تقلیل‌‌گرایی غلط است زیرا اولاً با تاریخ تحوّل نظریه‌هایی علمی سازگار نیست؛ ثانیاً رابطه بین شواهد و نظریه‌‌ها را به‌‌درستی توضیح نمی‌‌دهد؛ ثالثاً طبق استدلال فودر از عهده مشکل تحقق‌‌پذیری چندگانه برنمی‌‌آید؛ رابعاً طبقِ استدلال فایرابند اگر قیاس‌‌ناپذیری نظریه‌‌های علمی درست باشد آن‌‌گاه امکانِ هر نوع ارتباط از جمله ارتباط تقلیلی منتفی است. شکستِ تقلیل‌‌گرایی نشان می‌‌دهد مدل‌‌هایی از سنخ مدل‌‌های نیگل و اپنهایم-پاتنم پاسخ مناسبی برای مسئله وحدت علم فراهم نمی‌‌کنند. لذا پیشنهاد می‌‌شود که پاسخ مسئله وحدت علم از طریق رویکردی غیرتقلیل‌‌گرا، دنبال گردد..

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Critical Evaluation of Reductionism in Nigel and Oppenheim-Putnam Models of Science Unity

نویسنده [English]

  • Mohammad Mahdi Hatami

PhD in Philosophy, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

The unity or non-unity of science has been one of the most important philosophical issues in the twentieth century. One of the most important answers to the question of the unity of science has been suggested by reductionists. The present article focuses on two prominent examples of such approaches. The first example was taken from the philosophical movements of rational positivism and the second example was chosen from the post-positivist philosophical movements. We have shown that the supposedly successful reductions in science have given rise to the idea that the answer to the question of the unity of science is possible through reduction. We have then argued that the reductionist approach is fundamentally inefficient, inadequate, and incorrect. Reductionism is ineffective because it does not contribute to conceptual and ontological simplification. It is inadequate because, first, it does not cover the ontological diversity of fundamentally different scientific activities, and second, it does not provide an adequate answer to the explanatory need on why one ontological and epistemological layer is more fundamental than the other ones. Reductionism is wrong because, first, it is incompatible with the history of the evolution of scientific theories; second, it does not properly explain the relationship between evidences and theories. Third, according to Foder, it cannot solve the problem of multiple-realizability; fourth, according to Feyerabend, if the incomparability of scientific theories is correct, the possibility of any kind of communication, including deductive communication, is ruled out. The failure of reductionism shows that models like Nigel and Putnam-Oppenheim do not provide a suitable answer to the problem of the unity of science. Therefore, it is suggested that the answer to the problem of the unity of science be pursued through a non-reductionist approach.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Unity of science
  • Reductionism
  • Physicalism
  • Nigel
  • Oppenheim
  • Putnam
  • Baker, Alan (2016) "Simplicity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/simplicity/.
  • Bickle, John W. (1998) Psychoneural Reduction: The new wave, MIT Press.
  • Brigandt, Ingo and Alan Love (2017) “Reductionism in Biology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reduction-biology/.
  • Carnap, Rudolf (1938/1955) “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science”, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Vol. I. Part 1 (Nos. 1-5), Edit. Otto Neurath & Rudolf Carnap & Charles Morris, Chicago Illinois: University of Chicago Press, pp. 42-62.
  • Dowell, J. L (2006) “Formulating the Thesis of Physicalism”, Philosophical Studies, 131(1), pp. 1–23.
  • Feyerabend, Pual. K. (1962) “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. ΙΙΙ, edit. H. Feigl & G. Maxwell, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, reprinted in Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings, edit. Y. Balashov & A. Rosenberg, 2002, pp. 141-162.
  • Fodor, Jerry (1974) “special sciences, or disunity of science as a Working Hypothesis”, Readings in philosophy of psychology, vol. I, edit. Ned Joel Block (1980), Harvard University Press, pp.120-133.
  • Hatami Mohammad; Reza Sadeqi (2020) “The Critical reading of Models of the Unity of Science in 20th Century”, Occidental Studies, Vol. 10, Issue 2, pp. 41-61. (in Persian)
  • Hempel, C. (1949) “The logical Analysis of Psychology”, Readings in philosophy of psychology, vol. I, edit. Ned Joel Block (1980), Harvard University Press, pp.14-23.
  • Hempel, Carl (1990) Philosophy of Natural Sciences, trans. Hossein Masoumi Hamedani, Tehran, Markaz Nashr-e Daneshgahi. (in Persian)
  • Hooker, C. A. I. (1981) “Towards a General Theory of Reduction. Part I: Historical and Scientific Setting”, Dialogue, Vol. 20, Issue 01, pp. 38 – 59. (in Persian)
  • Nagle, Ernest (1961/1979) The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Oppenheim, Paul & Hillary Putnam (1958) “The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, edit. Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven & Grover Maxwell, Minnesota University Press, pp. 3-36.
  • Quine W. V. O. & J. S. Ullian (2014) The Web of Belief, trans. Amir Diwani, Tehran: Soroush Publications and Taha Book. (in Persian)
  • Quine, W. V. O. (2011) “On What There Is”, Arqanun Quarterly, Analytical Philosophy (collection of articles), trans. Manouchehr Badiei, Vol. 2, Issue. 7 - 8, 3rd edition, pp. 231-249. (in Persian)
  • Van Riel, Raphael; Robert Van Gulick (2019) “Scientific Reduction”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Vol. 11, Mind, Causation, and World (1997), pp. 107-132, https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr2019/entries/scientific-reduction/
  • Wilson, Edward (2018) Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, trans. Mohammad Ibrabim Mahjoub, Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. (in Persian)
  • Baker, Alan (2016) "Simplicity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/simplicity/.
  • Bickle, John W. (1998) Psychoneural Reduction: The new wave, MIT Press.
  • Brigandt, Ingo and Alan Love (2017) “Reductionism in Biology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/reduction-biology/.
  • Carnap, Rudolf (1938/1955) “Logical Foundations of the Unity of Science”, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Vol. I. Part 1 (Nos. 1-5), Edit. Otto Neurath & Rudolf Carnap & Charles Morris, Chicago Illinois: University of Chicago Press, pp. 42-62.
  • Dowell, J. L (2006) “Formulating the Thesis of Physicalism”, Philosophical Studies, 131(1), pp. 1–23.
  • Feyerabend, Pual. K. (1962) “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. ΙΙΙ, edit. H. Feigl & G. Maxwell, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, reprinted in Philosophy of Science: Contemporary Readings, edit. Y. Balashov & A. Rosenberg, 2002, pp. 141-162.
  • Fodor, Jerry (1974) “special sciences, or disunity of science as a Working Hypothesis”, Readings in philosophy of psychology, vol. I, edit. Ned Joel Block (1980), Harvard University Press, pp.120-133.
  • Hatami Mohammad; Reza Sadeqi (2020) “The Critical reading of Models of the Unity of Science in 20th Century”, Occidental Studies, Vol. 10, Issue 2, pp. 41-61. (in Persian)
  • Hempel, C. (1949) “The logical Analysis of Psychology”, Readings in philosophy of psychology, vol. I, edit. Ned Joel Block (1980), Harvard University Press, pp.14-23.
  • Hempel, Carl (1990) Philosophy of Natural Sciences, trans. Hossein Masoumi Hamedani, Tehran, Markaz Nashr-e Daneshgahi. (in Persian)
  • Hooker, C. A. I. (1981) “Towards a General Theory of Reduction. Part I: Historical and Scientific Setting”, Dialogue, Vol. 20, Issue 01, pp. 38 – 59. (in Persian)
  • Nagle, Ernest (1961/1979) The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation, Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Oppenheim, Paul & Hillary Putnam (1958) “The Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis”, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, edit. Herbert Feigl, Michael Scriven & Grover Maxwell, Minnesota University Press, pp. 3-36.
  • Quine W. V. O. & J. S. Ullian (2014) The Web of Belief, trans. Amir Diwani, Tehran: Soroush Publications and Taha Book. (in Persian)
  • Quine, W. V. O. (2011) “On What There Is”, Arqanun Quarterly, Analytical Philosophy (collection of articles), trans. Manouchehr Badiei, Vol. 2, Issue. 7 - 8, 3rd edition, pp. 231-249. (in Persian)
  • Van Riel, Raphael; Robert Van Gulick (2019) “Scientific Reduction”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Vol. 11, Mind, Causation, and World (1997), pp. 107-132, https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/spr2019/entries/scientific-reduction/
  • Wilson, Edward (2018) Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, trans. Mohammad Ibrabim Mahjoub, Tehran: Nashr-e Ney. (in Persian)
CAPTCHA Image