科学理解有规范性吗?

Is There Normativity in Scientific Understanding?

传统科学哲学认为描述性的研究方法不能产生规范性,而研究科学理解的理论采用的是描述性的研究方法,因而研究科学理解的理论被质疑不能为科学理解提供规范。研究科学理解的理论分为两条路径,第一条路径以知识和科学说明为基础为科学理解提供规范性,但这种奠基于逻辑必然性和先验必然性之上的规范性,怎样与科学理解的语用性相融合成为第一条路径必须要面对的问题;第二条路径统称为语境理论,费耶的“组织观”排斥所有的规范性,但却暗含融贯性,而融贯性体现对规范的需求。雷格的语境理论放弃了传统科学哲学认可的规范,追求的是语境规范性。雷格的语境理论为科学理解提供评估性规范,能够容纳科学理解的语用性,分析得出科学理解是有规范性的。

The traditional philosophy of science believes that descriptive research methods cannot lead to normativity.Given that the theory of scientific understanding adopts descriptive research methods,it is questioned whether or not to provide normativity for scientific understanding.The theory of scientific understanding is divided into two paths.The first path provides normativity for scientific understanding on the basis of knowledge and scientific explanation,but this normativity is based on logical inevitability and transcendental inevitability.Thus,the first path has to face the problem of how to integrate this normativity into the pragmatics of scientific understanding.The second path is collectively called the contextual theory.Faye's“organization view”rejects all norms,but it implies coherence which reflects the need for normativity.Regt's contextual theory abandons the normativity recognized by the traditional philosophy of science and pursues the normativity of contexts.Regt's contextual theory provides evaluative normativity for scientific understanding,which can accommodate the pragmatism of scientific understanding.It is then concluded that there is normativity in scientific understanding.