孔恩的不可共量性與框架理論
摘要
孔恩在1962年出版的著作中提出一個嶄新的科學圖像，這樣的創新引起了許多討論，其中固然包含許多迴響，卻也不乏批評的聲浪。晚近一些傾向於支持孔恩的科學哲學家，如陳向(Xiang Chen)、Peter Barker與Hanne Andersen 嘗試以認知心理學的角度為孔恩提出的科學圖像，特別是「典範」、「科學革命」與「不可共量性」這三個概念做重新詮釋。他們以認知心理學家Lawrence W. Barsalou提出的框架理論作為詮釋孔恩科學哲學的工具。本文的主要目的在於說明並檢視陳向等人對孔恩科學哲學的詮釋方式。
論文的一開始，筆者首先將說明為何要採取不同進路詮釋孔恩的科學哲學(孔恩自己的說明遇到了什麼問題？)。接著介紹陳向等人選擇的詮釋工具---巴索羅的框架理論。然後說明陳向等人如何使用框架理論詮釋孔恩的科學哲學。最後，筆者將檢視陳向等人的詮釋方式，指出他們的詮釋對釐清孔恩理論有什麼幫助。此外，筆者也指出陳向等人可能面臨的問題以及可能的解決方式。陳向等人可能面臨的問題為(1)身為一個表徵理論的框架理論是否可以說明分類的過程？(2)使用框架表徵典範是否可為科學家選擇不可共量的新理論提出合理說明？(3)框架理論對變遷連續性的說明是否會否定典範的穩定性？
關鍵字：孔恩、框架理論、科學革命、不可共量性、認知心理學
Abstract
Thomas S. Kuhn proposed a brand new image of science in his work “ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions ”published in 1962 and it invoked widely discussion. Many philosophers of science stand for Kuhn’s view, while still many others do not. Some philosophers of science who are inclined to be advocates of Kuhn’s view, including Xiang Chen, Peter Barker and Hanne Andersen tried to explicate Kuhn’s philosophy via cognitive psychological achievement. They applied Lawrence W. Barsalou’s frame theory to the interpretation of Kuhn’s theory, especially about the issues surrounding three key concepts “ paradigms ”, “ scientific revolutions ” and “ incommensurability”. The goal of my discourse is to show how Chen, Barker and Andersen to use Barsalou’s frame theory to explain Kuhn’s philosophy. And then check the explaining way to see if it is a right approach.
In the beginning of my discourse, I will show why we should find some other way to explain Kuhn’s theory, i.e. what’s wrong with Kuhn’s own arguments. Second, I will introduce Barsalou’s frame theory which is the tool Chen, Barker and Andersen pick. And then, I will show how Chen, Barker and Andersen to use Barsalou’s frame theory to explain Kuhn’s philosophy. Finally I will point out the advantage of using frame theory to interpret Kuhn’s philosophy. Besides, I will show three problems this interpretative way may face as follows：(1) As a theory to explain how people represent concepts, can frame theory also explain the process of categorization? (2) Can we explain scientists’ choices between incommensurable theories by using frames to represent so called “ paradigms ” ? (3) Would one of the advantages professor Chen, Barker conferred on the interpretative way that it can show the continuity through revolutionary change fail the stability Kuhn conferred on paradigms?
Key Words： Kuhn, frame theory, scientific revolution, incommensurability, cognitive psychology.