Underdetermination, Multiplicity, and Mathematical Logic

Whether a collection of scientific data can be explained only by a unique theory or whether such data can be equally explained by multiple theories is one of the more contested issues in the history and philosophy of science. This paper argues that the case for multiple explanations is strengthened by the widespread failure of models in mathematical logic to be unique, i.e., categorical. Science is taken to require replicable and explicit public knowledge; this necessitates an unambiguous language for its transmission. Mathematics has been chosen as the vehicle to transmit scientific knowledge, both because of its ＂unreasonable effectiveness＂ and because of its unambiguous nature, hence the vogue of axiomatic systems. But mathematical logic tells us that axiomatic systems need not refer to uniquely defined real structures. Hence what is accepted as science may be only one of several possibilities.

行政法总则的立法技术

行政法法典化是行政法体系化与国家治理现代化的必然要求,而制定行政法总则是近期可以实现且可行性较高的立法目标。行政法总则的制定很大程度上依赖抽象技术的运用。概念的抽象程度越高,就越能够保持行政法体系的开放性与前瞻性。整体而言,行政法总则的立法技术主要包括“提取公因式”“提炼学理共识”与“体系补全”,三者共同促进行政法总则的体系化。从总则与分则的关系角度考察,通过“提取公因式”这一立法技术能够将行政法制度的共性与一般性内容提炼形成基础性规范;通过“提炼学理共识”这一立法技术能够将行政法理论与实践中的学术共识提炼形成共识性规范;通过“体系补全”这一立法技术能够将行政法治实践中的理念与制度提炼形成拾遗性规范。