{"title":"陈述与真实性丧失异议","authors":"M. Ghins","doi":"10.3280/EPIS2012-001004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, I will focus on the following central question: how can an abstract entity – a model – possibly represent an existing observable entity, which is phenomenally accessible to us, but which is not abstract? This is what Bas van Fraassen calls “the loss of reality objection.” (van Fraassen B. C. 2008: 258) Instead of proposing a pragmatic dissolution of this objection as van Fraassen does, I will argue that our contact with phenomenal entities is grounded on propositions, dubbed “ontic”, that are true in a correspondence sense. Before we address this issue, a brief presentation of what I believe to be the main features of scientific representing is in order.","PeriodicalId":50506,"journal":{"name":"Epistemologia","volume":"1 1","pages":"47-58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Representation and the Loss of Reality Objection\",\"authors\":\"M. Ghins\",\"doi\":\"10.3280/EPIS2012-001004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, I will focus on the following central question: how can an abstract entity – a model – possibly represent an existing observable entity, which is phenomenally accessible to us, but which is not abstract? This is what Bas van Fraassen calls “the loss of reality objection.” (van Fraassen B. C. 2008: 258) Instead of proposing a pragmatic dissolution of this objection as van Fraassen does, I will argue that our contact with phenomenal entities is grounded on propositions, dubbed “ontic”, that are true in a correspondence sense. Before we address this issue, a brief presentation of what I believe to be the main features of scientific representing is in order.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epistemologia\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"47-58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epistemologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3280/EPIS2012-001004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epistemologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3280/EPIS2012-001004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在本文中,我将关注以下中心问题:一个抽象实体——一个模型——如何可能代表一个现有的可观察实体,这是我们可以明显地访问,但它不是抽象的?这就是Bas van Fraassen所说的“现实缺失反对”。(van Fraassen b.c. 2008: 258)我不会像van Fraassen那样提出一种实用主义的反驳,而是认为我们与现象实体的接触是建立在命题的基础上的,这些命题被称为“本体”,在对应的意义上是真实的。在我们讨论这个问题之前,有必要简要介绍一下我认为科学表征的主要特征。
In this paper, I will focus on the following central question: how can an abstract entity – a model – possibly represent an existing observable entity, which is phenomenally accessible to us, but which is not abstract? This is what Bas van Fraassen calls “the loss of reality objection.” (van Fraassen B. C. 2008: 258) Instead of proposing a pragmatic dissolution of this objection as van Fraassen does, I will argue that our contact with phenomenal entities is grounded on propositions, dubbed “ontic”, that are true in a correspondence sense. Before we address this issue, a brief presentation of what I believe to be the main features of scientific representing is in order.