托马斯·库恩科学发展模型中的个人、社区和群体

Q3 Arts and Humanities Principia Pub Date : 2021-07-08 DOI:10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E71002
Paulo Pirozelli
{"title":"托马斯·库恩科学发展模型中的个人、社区和群体","authors":"Paulo Pirozelli","doi":"10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E71002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn resorts to concepts from several disciplines in order to describe the general patterns of scientific development. This blend of disciplines can be explained in part by Kuhn's intellectual path, from physics to history and then to philosophy of science; but it also points to a deeper methodological problem, which is the question of what is the real unity of analysis in his model of science. The primary intention of this article is, thus, to give a solution to this difficulty. The answer, I believe, rests on identifying three fundamental units present in Kuhn's theory of scientific development. They are, respectively, the individual, responsible for producing evidence, spreading information, and choosing theories; the community, a set of scientists investigating a series of phenomena; and the groups, individuals with similar behavior but with looser institutional or social ties — a usually neglected category in Kuhnian literature, but equally fundamental for the final outcome of scientific debates. After investigating these categories in detail, I propose a way of integrating them into a general model for explaining the resolution of scientific controversies. Finally, I try to resolve the apparent conflict among disciplinary vocabularies by offering an account of the function of sociological, psychological, and epistemological concepts for describing controversies, and some of the methodologies appropriate for each of these tasks.","PeriodicalId":38561,"journal":{"name":"Principia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individuals, Communities, and Groups in Thomas Kuhn’s Model of Scientific Development\",\"authors\":\"Paulo Pirozelli\",\"doi\":\"10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E71002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn resorts to concepts from several disciplines in order to describe the general patterns of scientific development. This blend of disciplines can be explained in part by Kuhn's intellectual path, from physics to history and then to philosophy of science; but it also points to a deeper methodological problem, which is the question of what is the real unity of analysis in his model of science. The primary intention of this article is, thus, to give a solution to this difficulty. The answer, I believe, rests on identifying three fundamental units present in Kuhn's theory of scientific development. They are, respectively, the individual, responsible for producing evidence, spreading information, and choosing theories; the community, a set of scientists investigating a series of phenomena; and the groups, individuals with similar behavior but with looser institutional or social ties — a usually neglected category in Kuhnian literature, but equally fundamental for the final outcome of scientific debates. After investigating these categories in detail, I propose a way of integrating them into a general model for explaining the resolution of scientific controversies. Finally, I try to resolve the apparent conflict among disciplinary vocabularies by offering an account of the function of sociological, psychological, and epistemological concepts for describing controversies, and some of the methodologies appropriate for each of these tasks.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Principia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Principia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E71002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Principia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2021.E71002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在《科学革命的结构》中,托马斯·库恩运用了几个学科的概念来描述科学发展的一般模式。这种学科的融合可以部分解释为库恩的思想道路,从物理学到历史,再到科学哲学;但它也指向了一个更深层次的方法论问题,即在他的科学模型中,分析的真正统一性是什么。因此,这篇文章的主要目的是解决这一困难。我认为,答案在于确定库恩科学发展理论中存在的三个基本单元。他们分别是个人,负责提供证据、传播信息和选择理论;社区,一群研究一系列现象的科学家;以及群体,具有相似行为但制度或社会联系较松散的个人——这在Kuhnian文献中通常被忽视,但对科学辩论的最终结果同样重要。在详细研究了这些类别之后,我提出了一种将它们整合到一个通用模型中的方法,以解释科学争议的解决方法。最后,我试图通过描述社会学、心理学和认识论概念在描述争议方面的功能,以及适用于每项任务的一些方法,来解决学科词汇之间的明显冲突。
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
Individuals, Communities, and Groups in Thomas Kuhn’s Model of Scientific Development
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn resorts to concepts from several disciplines in order to describe the general patterns of scientific development. This blend of disciplines can be explained in part by Kuhn's intellectual path, from physics to history and then to philosophy of science; but it also points to a deeper methodological problem, which is the question of what is the real unity of analysis in his model of science. The primary intention of this article is, thus, to give a solution to this difficulty. The answer, I believe, rests on identifying three fundamental units present in Kuhn's theory of scientific development. They are, respectively, the individual, responsible for producing evidence, spreading information, and choosing theories; the community, a set of scientists investigating a series of phenomena; and the groups, individuals with similar behavior but with looser institutional or social ties — a usually neglected category in Kuhnian literature, but equally fundamental for the final outcome of scientific debates. After investigating these categories in detail, I propose a way of integrating them into a general model for explaining the resolution of scientific controversies. Finally, I try to resolve the apparent conflict among disciplinary vocabularies by offering an account of the function of sociological, psychological, and epistemological concepts for describing controversies, and some of the methodologies appropriate for each of these tasks.
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
Principia
Principia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Williamson sobre a vaguidade, o princípio da margem de erro e o princípio KK A negação do número 2 em Grundgesetze e § 46 de Grundlagen: Resposta a N.N. Pons Asinorum para a Lógica Proposicional Clássica Limitaciones de la complejidad en las Ciencias Ómicas: simplificación epistemológica en el abordaje de enfermedades Una Concepción Enactiva de Cultura: Enculturación como Acople Dinámico entre Seres Humanos y sus Entornos de Cultura Material
×
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