Teaduslik teooria kui teadusfilosoofia kategooria

  • Rein Vihalemm Department of Philosophy, University of Tartu
Keywords: teaduslik teooria, teooria ja eksperiment, teooria matemaatiline komponent, keemilise struktuuri teooria, mudelite populatsioon, scientific theory, theory and experiment, mathematical component of theory, theory of chemical structure, population of models

Abstract

Artiklis arendatakse alternatiivset kontseptsiooni niihästi traditsioonilisele füüsikakesksele teadusliku teooria käsitlusele kui ka seisukohale, et füüsikateooriat ei saa teadusfilosoofias mõista teadusliku teooria mudelina, sest erinevates teadustes on teooriad oma loomult erinevad. Ollakse seisukohal, et teaduslik teooria on ikkagi teadusfilosoofia kategooriana teadusliku distsipliini eripärast sõltumatu. Käsitletakse põhiliselt kahte punkti: (1) miks on teadusfilosoofias põhjust kritiseerida traditsioonilist, füüsika põhjal saadud ettekujutust teaduslikust teooriast? (2) miks ei ole põhjendatud seisukoht, et nt keemias on teaduslik teooria (nt klassikaline keemilise struktuuri teooria) oma loomult füüsikateooriast (nt klassikalisest mehhaanikast) erinev? Traditsioonilise füüsikakeskse lähenemisviisi puhul ei ole piisavalt uuritud, miks õieti füüsikateooria on saanud teadusliku teooria etaloniks. Teoreetilise füüsika keskne teadusekontseptsioon on olnud ühekülgselt orienteeritudmatemaatikale ja loogikale. Kui aga lähtuda teooriast kui mudelite populatsioonist, nagu Ronald Giere on seda teinud ka klassikalise mehhaanika - füüsikakeskse teooriakäsituse traditsioonilise näite - korral, siis osutub see teooriakäsitus tõepoolest invariantseks teatavale tunnetustüübile, mida on alust nimetada teaduslikuks ja mis on selgesti omane ka nt keemiale.

In this paper an alternative conception is proposed both to (1) the traditional physics-based conception of scientific theory, and (2) the view that a physical theory cannot be regarded as the model for scientific theory in philosophy of science in general because scientific theories are discipline-dependent. It is argued that scientific theory as a category of philosophy of science is independent of a particular scientific discipline. The main focus of the paper is on two questions: (1) Why is the traditional physics-based conception of scientific theory subject to criticism in philosophy of science? (2) Why is it unjustified to consider a scientific theory in chemistry (e.g., the classical chemical structure theory, which is probably the most characteristic theory of chemistry) to be different in character from a physical theory (e.g., classical mechanics, which is a prototypical example of a theory in the philosophy of science)? In case of the traditional physics-based approach not enough research has been done as to why theories of physics have become the etalon of scientific theory. The accepted view of science, centered on theoretical physics, has been one-sidedly oriented towards mathematics and logic. But when proceeding from a conception of a scientific theory as a population of models, as Ronald Giere has done for the case of classical mechanics - the traditional example of a physical theory -, this conception of a theory really does prove the invariance of a certain type of cognition that can justifiably be called scientific and that is clearly characteristic of, e.g., chemistry as well.

References

Bõkov, G. V. (1980). Istorija klassitÅ¡eskoi teorii himitÅ¡eskogo stroenija, Izd-vo AN SSSR, Moskva.

Butlerow, A. (1861). Einiges Über die chemische Strukturder KÖrper, Zeitschrift für Chemie 4: 549-560.

Butlerov, A. M. (1953). O himitšeskom stroenii veštšestv. Sotšinenija t. Izdvo AN SSSR, Moskva.

Carnap, R. (1937). The Logical Syntax of Language, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Christie, M. ja Christie, J. (2000). “Laws” and “theories” in chemistry do not obey the rules. N. Bushan ja S.Rosenfeld (toim), Of Minds and Molecules: New Philosophical Perspectives on Chemistry, Oxford University Press, New York, lk 34-50.

Christie, J. R. ja Christie, M.(2003). Chemical laws and theories: A response to Vihalemm, Foundations of Chemistry 5: 165-177.

Craver, C. F. (2002). Structures of scientific theories. P. Machamer ja M. Silberstein (toim), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Malden (Mass.), Oxford, lk 55-79.

da Costa, N. ja French, S.(2000). Models, theories, and structures: Thirty years on, Philosophy of Science 67 (Supplement): 116-127.

Feigl, H. (1970). The “ortodox” view of theories: Remarks in defense as well as critique, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4: 3-16.

Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Giere, R. N. (2000). Theories. W. H. Newton-Smith (toim), A Companionto the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Malden (Mass.), Oxford, lk 515-524.

Grjaznov, B. S. (1982). Logika, ratsionalnost, tvortšestvo, Nauka, Moskva.

Heidegger, M. (1994). Die zeit des weltbildes, Holzwege, 7. Aufl., Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, lk 75-93.

Hoffmann, R. ja Laszlo, P. (1991). Representation in chemistry, Angewandte Chemie. International Edition in English 30: 1-16.

Kuhn, T. S. (2003). Teadusrevolutsioonide struktuur, Ilmamaa, Tartu. Tlk. Ruth Lias.

Machamer, P. ja Silberstein, M. (toim) (2002). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Malden (Mass.), Oxford.

Rocke, A. J. (1981). KekulÉ, Butlerov, and the historiography of the theory of chemical structure, The British Journal for the History of Science 14: 27-57.

Schummer, J. (1997a). Challenging standard distinctions between science and technology: The case of preparative chemistry, Hyle 3: 81-94.

Schummer, J. (1997b). Towards a philosophy of chemistry, Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28: 307-336.

Schummer, J. (1998). The chemical core of chemistry I: A conceptual approach, Hyle 4: 129-162.

Schummer, J. (2004). Why do chemists perform experiments?. D. Sobczynska, P. Zeidler ja E. Zielonacka-Lis (toim), Chemistry in the Philosophical Melting Pot, Vol. 5 of Dia-Logos: Studies in Philosophy and Social Sciences, Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main, lk 395-410.

Schummer, J. (2006). The philosophy of chemistry: From infancy toward maturity. D. Baird, E. Scerri ja L. MacIntyre (toim), Philosophy of Chemistry: Synthesis of a New Discipline, Vol. 242 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Springer, Dordrecht, lk 19-39.

Suppe, F. (2000). Understanding scientific theories: An assessment of developments, 1969-199 Philosophy of Science 67 (Supplement): 102-115.

Suppe, F. (toim) (1974). The Structure of Scientific Theories, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Vihalemm, R. (1999). Can chemistry be handled as its own type of science?, N. Psarros ja K. Gavroglu (toim), Ars Mutandi: Issues in Philosophy and History of Chemistry, Leipziger Universitätsverlag, Leipzig, lk 83-88.

Vihalemm, R. (2001). Chemistry as an interesting subject for the philosophy of science. R. Vihalemm (toim), Estonian Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 219 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Kluwer, Dordrecht, lk 185-200.

Vihalemm, R. (2003a). Are laws of nature and scientific theories peculiar in chemistry?, Foundations of Chemistry 5: 7-22.

Vihalemm, R. (2003b). Järesõna. “Teadusrevolutsioonide struktuur” nelikümmend aastat hiljem. T. S. Kuhn, Teadusrevolutsioonide struktuur, Ilmamaa, Tartu, lk 287-304. Tlk. Ruth Lias.

Vihalemm, R. (2004). The problem of the unity of science and chemistry. D. Sobczynska, P.Zeidler ja E.Zielonacka-Lis (toim), Chemistry in the Philosophical Melting Pot, Vol. 5 of Dia-Logos: Studies in Philosophy and Social Sciences, Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main, lk 39-58.

Vihalemm, R. (2005). Chemistry and a theoretical model of science: On the occasion of a recent debate with the Christies, Foundations of Chemistry 7: 171-182.

Vihalemm, R. (2007a). Philosophy of chemistry and the image of science, Foundations of Science 12: 223-234.

Vihalemm, R. (2007b). Scientific theory as a category of philosophy of science: A criticism of the view that scientific theories are discipline dependent, Volume of Abstracts. 13th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, IUHPS/DLMPS, Beijing, lk 281-283.

Vihalemm, R. (toim) (1979). Teaduse metodoloogia, Eesti Raamat, Tallinn.

Published
2009-08-26
How to Cite
Vihalemm, R. (2009). Teaduslik teooria kui teadusfilosoofia kategooria. Studia Philosophica Estonica, 32-46. https://doi.org/10.12697/spe.2009.2.1.03
Section
Articles