本体论在理解植物知识系统中有作用吗?

R. Ellen
{"title":"本体论在理解植物知识系统中有作用吗?","authors":"R. Ellen","doi":"10.2993/0278-0771-36.1.10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper offers a critical examination of the use of the concept of ontology in ethnobotany. Competing definitions and problems are first assessed for recent work in anthropology and the history of science. This is followed by a review of seven areas of current ethnobotanical investigation where there are disjunctions of approach that could arguably be said to be ontological: post-Linnean taxonomic orthodoxy versus local plant classification, pre-Linnean natural history versus science, phytopharmaceutical orthodoxy versus medical anthropology, museum practice versus lived practice, ecological versus phylogenetic explanation, plant versus knowledge movement, and shifts in understanding contingent on membership of different intra-cultural domains. In the light of these examples, a threefold meta-conceptual distinction is suggested: between cultural domains (distinguishing knowledge and practice on the grounds of content), epistemes (distinguishing knowledge in terms of the methods and approaches used to acquire it), and ontologies in the strict sense (defined in terms of underlying logical relations and cosmological assumptions).","PeriodicalId":230217,"journal":{"name":"Nature Wars","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There a Role for Ontologies in Understanding Plant Knowledge Systems?\",\"authors\":\"R. Ellen\",\"doi\":\"10.2993/0278-0771-36.1.10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This paper offers a critical examination of the use of the concept of ontology in ethnobotany. Competing definitions and problems are first assessed for recent work in anthropology and the history of science. This is followed by a review of seven areas of current ethnobotanical investigation where there are disjunctions of approach that could arguably be said to be ontological: post-Linnean taxonomic orthodoxy versus local plant classification, pre-Linnean natural history versus science, phytopharmaceutical orthodoxy versus medical anthropology, museum practice versus lived practice, ecological versus phylogenetic explanation, plant versus knowledge movement, and shifts in understanding contingent on membership of different intra-cultural domains. In the light of these examples, a threefold meta-conceptual distinction is suggested: between cultural domains (distinguishing knowledge and practice on the grounds of content), epistemes (distinguishing knowledge in terms of the methods and approaches used to acquire it), and ontologies in the strict sense (defined in terms of underlying logical relations and cosmological assumptions).\",\"PeriodicalId\":230217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nature Wars\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nature Wars\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.1.10\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Wars","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-36.1.10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

摘要本文对本体论概念在民族植物学中的应用进行了批判性的考察。相互竞争的定义和问题首先在人类学和科学史最近的工作进行评估。接下来是对当前民族植物学调查的七个领域的回顾,其中存在可以被认为是本体论的方法分歧:后林奈时代的正统分类学与当地植物分类,前林奈时代的自然史与科学,植物药物正统论与医学人类学,博物馆实践与生活实践,生态与系统发育解释,植物与知识运动,以及不同文化域成员关系的理解转变。根据这些例子,我们提出了三重元概念区分:文化领域(根据内容区分知识和实践)、知识(根据获取知识的方法和途径区分知识)和严格意义上的本体论(根据潜在的逻辑关系和宇宙学假设来定义)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is There a Role for Ontologies in Understanding Plant Knowledge Systems?
Abstract This paper offers a critical examination of the use of the concept of ontology in ethnobotany. Competing definitions and problems are first assessed for recent work in anthropology and the history of science. This is followed by a review of seven areas of current ethnobotanical investigation where there are disjunctions of approach that could arguably be said to be ontological: post-Linnean taxonomic orthodoxy versus local plant classification, pre-Linnean natural history versus science, phytopharmaceutical orthodoxy versus medical anthropology, museum practice versus lived practice, ecological versus phylogenetic explanation, plant versus knowledge movement, and shifts in understanding contingent on membership of different intra-cultural domains. In the light of these examples, a threefold meta-conceptual distinction is suggested: between cultural domains (distinguishing knowledge and practice on the grounds of content), epistemes (distinguishing knowledge in terms of the methods and approaches used to acquire it), and ontologies in the strict sense (defined in terms of underlying logical relations and cosmological assumptions).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Why Aren’t the Nuaulu Like the Matsigenka? Political Contingency, Historical Ecology and the Renegotiation of Nature List of Illustrations Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and Its Transformations Local and Scientific Understandings of Forest Diversity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1