پیشرفت علم از منظر روی بسکار و خطاپذیری شناخت؛ نقدی بر چهار رویکرد

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد فلسفه علم، گروه فلسفه علم، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه فلسفه علم، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

مهمترین رویکردها در تبیین پیشرفت علم، عبارتند از: رویکرد معنایی، کارکردی، معرفتی و ادراکی. هر کدام از این رویکردها با توجّه به هدفی که برای علم متصوّر است، پیشرفت را نیز بر همان مبنا تعریف می‌‌کنند. رویکرد معنایی، پیشرفت را مبتنی بر تقرّب به صدق، رویکرد کارکردی مبتنی بر حلّ مسئله، رویکرد معرفتی مبتنی بر انباشت دانش و رویکرد ادراکی نیز پیشرفت را مبتنی بر افزایش فهم، تعریف می‌‌کند. روی بسکار با توصیفی لایه‌‌مند از جهان، «علم» را حرکت به سمتِ لایه‌‌های عمیق‌‌تر دانسته که با هدفِ کشف مکانیزم‌‌های مولّد انجام می‌‌شود. او «پیشرفت» را نیز مبتنی بر همین لایه‌‌مندی و کسبِ دانش نسبت به لایه‌‌های زیرین، تبیین می‌‌کند، امّا از آنجا که به اجتماعی بودنِ علم معتقد است و دانش را محصولی اجتماعی و در معرض تغییر می‌‌داند، به خطاپذیریِ شناختْ اذعان دارد و بر این باور است که حرکت به سمت لایۀ جدید، ضرورتاً به پیشرفت علم نمی‌‌انجامد؛ اگر چه این امکان وجود دارد که با کسبِ دانش نسبت به لایۀ جدید، دانشِ پیشینْ بازبینی و تصحیح شود. در این مقاله، ضمنِ شرح نظریۀ پیشرفت بسکار و تبیینِ امکانی بودنِ آن با توجّه به خطاپذیریِ شناخت، یک هدف اساسی را دنبال می‌‌کنیم. این هدف، در بررسیِ هر چهار رویکرد، به منظور نشان دادنِ عدم توجّه آنان به جنبۀ خطاپذیریِ شناخت و تأثیر آن در تبیین پیشرفت، خلاصه می‌‌شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Roy Bhaskar on Scientific Progress and the Fallibility of Cognition: A Critique of Four Approaches

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Poostforush 1
  • Mostafa Taqavi 2
1 Master Student, Philosophy of Science Department, Sharif Industrial University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Philosophy of Science Department, Sharif Industrial University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

So far, various approaches have been proposed to explain the progress of science. These approaches, which fall under a fourfold classification, are as follows: semantic, functional, epistemic, and noetic approaches. Each of these approaches, based on the intended purpose of science, defines progress on the same basis. The semantic approach defines progress based on the approximation to the truth, the functional approach based on problem-solving, the epistemic approach based on knowledge accumulation, and the noetic approach based on increased understanding. With a stratified description of the world, Roy Bhaskar sees science as the movement toward deeper layers aimed at discovering productive mechanisms. He also explains progress based on the layering and acquisition of knowledge of the underlying layers. But because he believes in the social nature of science and considers knowledge a social product and subject to change, he acknowledges the fallibility of cognition. Hence, it is believed that moving to a new layer does not necessarily lead to the progress of science. However, it is possible that by acquiring knowledge about the new layer, our previous knowledge will be revised and corrected. In this article, while expressing the Bhaskar theory of scientific progress and explaining its contingency with respect to the fallibility of cognition, we pursue a basic goal. This goal is summarized in the review of all four approaches in order to show their lack of attention to the fallibility of cognition and its effect on explaining progress.
What has been done in this article is based on two phases: explaining the contingency of the progress of science for Bhaskar and examining the four approaches to the progress of science in order to show their inattention to the fallibility of cognition. In his philosophy, referring to the two dimensions of transitive and intransitive, Roy Bhaskar considers the purpose of science to be the acquisition of knowledge about intransitive objects, and this knowledge is achieved through a social activity. Since this cognition is a social product and belongs to the transitive dimension of science, it will be fallible and subject to change. Bhaskar concludes with philosophical arguments that the world contains generative mechanisms, but that it is the task of science to discover their nature and exactly what mechanisms are at work. This requires work in two theoretical dimensions, namely the use of conceptual tools and a practical dimension, that is, the use of experimental tools. Now, as the theoretical and technical conditions under which cognition is formed and evaluated are themselves expanding and subject to change and modification, our knowledge may also be expanded or corrected. In this study, it was found that the semantic approach is unaware of the effect of fallibility on the evidence used to estimate the approximation to the truth and, consequently, progress. The functional approach ignores this effect in solving the problems posed by theories. The epistemic approach does not take into account the fallibility of evidence used to justify and validate the evidence, and finally, the noetic approach neglects the effect of the fallibility on what the explanation and prediction are based on. These have led to these approaches, which consider the satisfaction of the criteria in question necessarily leads to progress.
 
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Roy Bhaskar
  • scientific progress
  • fallibility of cognition
  • contingent
  • necessary
Baert, P. (2005). Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism (1st edition). Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity.
Benton, T., & Craib, I. (2010). Philosophy of Social Science: The Philosophical Foundations of Social Thought. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Bhaskar, R. (2008). A Realist Theory of Science. Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2009). Scientific Realism and Human Emancipation. Routledge.
Bhaskar, R. (2010). Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. Taylor & Francis.
Bird, A. (2007). What Is Scientific Progress? Noûs. 41, 64-89. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00638.x
Cevolani, G., & Tambolo, L. (2013). Progress as Approximation to the Truth: A Defence of the Verisimilitudinarian Approach. Erkenntnis (1975-). 78(4), 921-935.
Clarke, S. (2010). Transcendental Realisms in the Philosophy of Science: On Bhaskar and Cartwright. Synthese. 173(3), 299-315. doi: 10.1007/s11229-008-9427-2
Dellsén, F. (2016). Scientific progress: Knowledge versus understanding. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 56, 72-83.      doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.01.003 
Dellsén, F. (2018 a). Scientific Progress: Four Accounts. Philosophy Compass. 13. (11), e12525.  doi: 10.1111/phc3.12525
Dellsén, F. (2018 b). Scientific Progress, Understanding, and Knowledge: Reply to Park. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie. 49(3), 451-459. doi: 10.1007/s10838-018-9419-y
Isaksen, K. R. (2016). Reclaiming Rational Theory Choice as Central: A Critique of Methodological Applications of Critical Realism. Journal of Critical Realism. 15(3), 245-262. doi: 10.1080/14767430.2016.1169369
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition (2nd edition). Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.
Laudan, L. (1981). A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress. In Hacking, I. (Ed.), Scientific Revolutions, 144-155. Oxford University Press.
Mizrahi, M. (2017). Scientific Progress: Why Getting Closer to Truth Is Not Enough. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 31(4), 415-419. doi: 10.1080/02698595.2019.1565213
Mizrahi, M., & Buckwalter, W. (2014). The Role of Justification in the Ordinary Concept of Scientific Progress. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie. 45(1), 151-166. doi: 10.1007/s10838-014-9243-y
Niiniluoto, I. (2014). Scientific Progress as Increasing Verisimilitude. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 46, 73-77. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.02.002
Niiniluoto, I. (2017). Optimistic Realism about Scientific Progress. Synthese. 194(9), 3291-3309. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0974-z
Park, S. (2017). Does Scientific Progress Consist in Increasing Knowledge or Understanding? Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie. 48(4), 569-579. doi: 10.1007/s10838-017-9363-2
Park, S. (2020). Scientific Understanding, Fictional Understanding, and Scientific Progress. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift Für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie. 51(1), 173-184. doi: 10.1007/s10838-019-09480-8
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2nd edition). London; Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Roselli, A. (2020). Realists Waiting for Godot? The Verisimilitudinarian and the Cumulative Approach to Scientific Progress. Erkenntnis. 85(5), 1071-1084. doi: 10.1007/s10670-018-0065-x
Rowbottom, D. P. (2015). Scientific Progress without Increasing Verisimilitude: In Response to Niiniluoto. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 51, 100-104. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.01.003
Scorzato, L. (2016). A Simple Model of Scientific Progress-With Examples. ArXiv:1604.06946 [Physics]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1604.06946
Shan, Y. (2019). A New Functional Approach to Scientific Progress. Philosophy of Science. 86(4), 739-758. doi: 10.1086/704980
Tambolo, L. (2015). A Tale of Three Theories: Feyerabend and Popper on Progress and the Aim of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. 51, 33-41. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.02.005
Yucel, R. (2018). Scientists’ Ontological and Epistemological Views about Science from the Perspective of Critical Realism. Science & Education. 27(5-6), 407-433. doi: 10.1007/s11191-018-9983-x
CAPTCHA Image