【作者】 裘杰；

【导师】 赵玲；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 科学技术哲学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 俄(苏)科学哲学在继承马克思主义的传统中,提出了与西方思想界迥异的一系列独创性的理论思想,留下了丰富的典籍。在西方科学哲学的范式长期居于主流地位的情况下,俄(苏)科学哲学始终保持着自身特点,并没有被“同化”。尤其是在今天,当西方科学哲学的发展陷入困境之时,马克思主义传统的科学哲学却在不断拓展自身发展的空间,正日益显示出强大的生命力。因此,俄(苏)科学哲学作为一个具有特殊意义的参照系,非常值得深入地研究和探索。论文遵循历史与逻辑相统一的方法论原则,通过对中俄科学哲学兴起的哲学基础、文化语境和时代背景的比较和梳理,概括了两国在思想、文化、科学观念等诸多方面的特点,阐释了两国在不同语境下的科学哲学发展的共性和各自特色,以及在科学哲学观念的整体导向上反映出来的理论特征。论文在总结两国科学哲学研究的社会文化传统的基础上,论证了马克思主义理论指导下我国和俄(苏)科学哲学研究的丰富的思想内容和优势,系统地探索并提出了科学哲学研究的问题域;通过对科学哲学理论研究中的重要基础理论问题——科学动力学、科学结构和科学基础进行主题比较研究,揭示了俄(苏)科学哲学从系统论的角度,研究科学哲学的基础理论问题的整体性和不可替代性,为我国的科学哲学研究带来有益的借鉴和启示。论文论证了中俄科学哲学比较研究的当代理论价值和实践意义,从社会文化的角度对科学进行的哲学研究,是科学哲学发展的必然趋势,这将有助于帮助我们梳理中国科学哲学演变的历史线索,为推进我国科学哲学的本土化研究,建设和发展具有中国特色的马克思主义科学哲学提供丰富的思想理论。更多还原

【Abstract】 There exist two traditions in philosophy of science: the tradition of analytical empiricism in the western philosophy of science and the tradition of social culture in Soviet Russian and Chinese philosophy of science. The former is an important school of thoughts in western philosophy while the latter is based on dialectical materialism. So far, there has been insufficient attention from the western academics on philosophy of science research based on dialectical materialism. The problem is that the advantages of philosophy of science research with the guide of Marxism has not been recognized or summarized even though the advantages of this approach are apparent. Apart from the western philosophy of science, Soviet Russian philosophy of science has also accomplished peculiar theoretical achievements in Marxist tradition, which forms an important source of our thought.The precondition of rational referencing is to conduct a comparative study of the commonness and peculiarities of philosophy of science of the two countries, particularly the comparison of the evolution and histories of philosophy of science of these two countries. Although both countries belong to Marxist tradition, there are great differences in their cultural backgrounds, philosophical origins and the historical progress of philosophy of science development. Therefore, we need to analyze and study more specifically. This forms the logical thread of this paper.Chapter 1 is a comparison between the research traditions of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. In respect of ideological systems, there have formed two divergent traditions in philosophy of science research: the tradition of analytical empiricism and the tradition of the social culture. The representative of the former tradition is the western philosophy of science which is one of the important branches of western philosophy. The latter tradition is under the guidance of dialectical materialism and with Soviet Russian and Chinese philosophy of science as the representatives. Based on the dialectical materialism, Marxist philosophy of science examines science in a more extensive perspective: taking science as a social process to study its evolution and development; taking science as a social product to study its theories and methodology; taking science as a social productivity and a basis of guiding social development to study its social functions. The social historical school of the western philosophy of science has introduced social factors in the historical research of science. However, their philosophy did not break away from the analytical philosophy framework, which has resulted in insuperable difficulties in further development of the western philosophy of science. The social cultural orientation of philosophy of science is not simple reasoning and extension of Marxist social theories in the domain of philosophy of science, but rather a natural choice in the new phase of philosophy of science. To some extent, it represents the trend of philosophy of science.Chapter 2 is a comparison between the contexts of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. Philosophy of science originated in the Soviet Union as a result of philosophy ideology development in the Soviet Union in 1960s. The rise of Soviet philosophy of science originated from the research of natural science philosophy issues in the Soviet period. It consists of two domains: (1) philosophy about the natural science itself which is the philosophical analysis conducted upon the objective contents of scientific theories about the outer world and natural phenomenon as well as the epistemic means of relevant experiments and theories used; (2) philosophical analysis conducted upon the natural science as a whole and each individual components with the objectives of expounding the rules and methods in understanding the objective world in the perspective of natural science theories, expounding the structure of scientific theory and the relationship between empirical and theoretical levels in scientific understanding. Research from this angle focuses on the structure of scientific theories, methodology of scientific understanding, theoretical principles and proofs as well as the rule of scientific development. These aspects are referred to as“aspects of philosophy of science”by Soviet scholars. Chinese philosophy of science originated from the research paradigm transition of the natural dialectics. At the end of 1990s, the research paradigm of natural dialectics has seen a variety of transition including philosophy of science, scientific methodology, history of scientific thoughts, sociology of science, natural philosophy, and so on. In traditional natural dialectical research, researchers usually have profound natural science foundation and their research mainly focuses on natural perspective and science perspective. With the transition of research paradigm, philosophy of science has become a spotlight, which has led to great transition in the research contents, methodology and research teams in natural dialectics study.There are commonness and differences in philosophy of science of the Soviet Union and the modern China. The commonness is the inclusion of relevant philosophy of science research in their respective philosophical research. The Soviet natural science philosophical issues consist of“philosophy of science aspects”, while scientific dynamics and scientific methodology has always been inseparable components in Chinese natural dialectics research. The differences include, first, Soviet research of philosophical issues in natural science is an important period in the development of Soviet Russian philosophy of science. To some extent, from the research of philosophical issues in natural science to the rise of philosophy of science in the Soviet Union, there is no radical change to the research contents, but rather, the research focus has shifted from philosophy of natural science itself to philosophical analysis of natural science as a whole. Chinese philosophy of science has developed from natural dialectics and depended upon the introduction of western philosophy of science. Secondly, in developing philosophy of science, both Russia and China have to face conflicts between the national culture and western culture, but with some differences. In Russia, the East-West conflict is internal while the cultural conflicts the Chinese face are external. Thirdly, in traditional Chinese culture,“secular”culture is dominant, while“monastic”culture is dominant in Russia. The rise of philosophy of science in Russia is determined, to a great extent, by its own philosophical thoughts and is part of the overall transformation of the Soviet philosophical thoughts. In contrary, in China, although traditional natural dialectics research has formed a profound foundation, the transition of research focus from scientific natural perspective to scientific epistemology and methodology depends on the external force, i.e. western philosophy of science. The Soviet scholars bring issues into their own philosophical system and raise questions and solve them in their own way. Therefore, the Soviet scholars selectively absorb western philosophy of science whereas their Chinese counterparts almost bring in the whole lot from the west which makes localized research insufficient.Chapter 3 is a comparison between the themes of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. Issues in philosophy of science research are summarized and comparative studies are conducted upon scientific dynamics, structure and foundation. The research of Russian scientific dynamics focuses on three aspects: (1) research of scientific development status. At different stages of scientific development, there are two statuses: gradual as opposed against extensive development style and transilient as opposed to intensive development. That a new theory takes the place of an old one is realized in the process of scientific development. It does not happen without a long process. (2) Research of scientific development process. Soviet scholars have proposed the concept of graphic formula of the basic theory. In conventional science period, when corresponding knowledge systems are extrapolated into practical new domains, the original graphic formula of the basic theory remains unchanged. The reform of graphic formula of the basic theory is called scientific revolution. In conventional science period, graphic formula of the basic theory is allowed to change in part. Through the concept of graphic formula of the basic theory, Soviet scholars give reasonable explanation to the nature of scientific revolution. (3) Research of scientific development motives. Hessen episode initiated research of externalism and C. P. Mikulinski initiated research of synthesis theory. Scientific dynamic research in China mainly centers on two themes: scientific development patterns and scientific progress. The research includes aspects of: (1) review of western philosophy of science theories; (2) comparative studies of various schools in western philosophy of science; and (3) research of gradual creative styles.The Russian scientific structure research consists of two aspects: the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge and the structure of theoretical explanation of the empirical materials. Chinese scientific structure research mainly focuses on the first aspect. By comparing Sino-Russian scientific structure research, commonness is found in the following three points: (1) studying the scientific knowledge structure in a system perspective; (2) examining the scientific knowledge structure from the nature and existing way of scientific knowledge, which has avoided the defects of over emphasizing on the formal parsing in the western philosophy of science; (3) in terms of research methodology, Soviet Russian scholars prefer case studies while Chinese scholars prefer logical analysis.In Russian philosophy of science research, there is a special domain, i.e. science foundation. B. C. Stepin proposed three components of science foundation: world prospect of science, thoughts and norms of science understanding activities and the philosophical foundation of science. The relationship among them is that world prospect of science and thoughts and norms of science understanding activities are two basic group components. World prospect of science is established on the basis of thoughts and norms of science understanding activities. Thoughts and norms of science understanding activities involve the explanation of concepts and norms, on which basis ontological hypotheses are introduced. Therefore, they have direct impacts on world prospects of science. The common groundwork of these two basic group components is philosophical foundation of science which connects the two group components to the social culture.Chinese scholars think that in science, there exist explicit or implicit presumptions, such as scientific world outlook, science belief, science tradition, scientific methodology, scientific objectives, and guiding principles and so on. Among these, scientific world outlook is scientific world concepts, world outlook, cosmology, opinion of nature, world image, world pattern, and so on. Science belief is a concept hard to define. It is not a component of the theory but it is indispensable in scientific research. It usually has great impacts on scientists in their research directions, selection of research questions and research methodology. It sometimes is a motive of scientists in their scientific exploration. Science tradition generally refers to thoughts, morality, customs, art, systems and habits which inherit from the past. It is a reflection of cohesion and continuity of a nationality, culture or religion. Scientific objective is a generic word for belief, intuition, anticipation and social and cultural factors. Guiding principles are explicit or implicit presumptions that guide scientific research and activities. They are interlocking with scientific presumptions of scientific world outlook, science belief, science tradition and scientific methodology.Chapter 4 is the significance and contribution of the comparative study of the Sino-Russian philosophy of science. (1) Reference and absorption of significance achievements in Russian philosophy of science. The advantage of Marxist tradition in philosophy of science research should be recognized. It is the natural trend of philosophy of science development to do philosophical research in science from the social cultural perspective. Western philosophy of science is not the only frame of reference. The reason why western philosophy of science is stuck in the corner is that it does not surpass the frames of minds of the traditional epistemology and analytical philosophy. The only option for western philosophy of science to get out of the difficulty is to break through the frames of traditional epistemology and analytical philosophy and to develop philosophy of science towards scientific cultural philosophy. (2) Constructing and developing Chinese Marxist philosophy of science. The objective of the comparative study between philosophy of science that both belong to Marxist tradition is to provide reasonable suggestions in establishing and developing Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities. It helps us sort out the thread of Chinese philosophy of science evolution, formulate accurately the research domain of Chinese philosophy of science and understand philosophical contexts of Chinese philosophy of science emergence. (3) Serving construction of China’s modernization. The comparative study of Sino-Russian philosophy of science can help enhance the foundation level of our philosophy of science and expound the social dynamic mechanism of scientific development. On the other hand, the comparative study combines philosophy of science with the development of science and technology, which facilitates a better understanding of the relationship between science and socialist construction. It is certain that the fundamental objective is to construct and develop Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities. It is our mission to develop Marxist philosophy of science and we have no reason to give up this domain. Taking science as the research target, philosophy of science studies the structure and foundation of science, scientific methodology and patterns of scientific development dynamics. In Russia and China where social cultural tradition is prevalent, philosophy of science also studies the rules of interactions between science and society. Taking science as the research target, philosophical research of science is not the“patent”of any particular school of philosophy. Marxist philosophy of science of the social cultural tradition has shown its advantages in research. Soviet Russian scholars have made achievements, greatly different from their western counterparts, which demonstrate the advantage of studying philosophy of science from the Marxist perspective. It is not only our important theoretical task but also non-shirking and historic responsibility to construct Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities.更多还原