摘要
最近有的学者从论证角度反驳不可通约性,但是其反驳偏执于理论的描述性而忽视其规范性。就推理前提的把握而言,这种理论取向表现为预设不同个体可以一致地确定名称的指称。在库恩关于不可通约性的论证中也存在类似理论取向。从依据因果历史理论对不可通约性的反驳来看,导致这一理论取向的原因主要在于接受一种语言能力预设。在个体确定名称指称的过程中,含有名称的表达式激起该名称的一条使用规则,它与该表达式一并构成一个内在推理的基本前提。可以根据这一原理建立一个内在推理模型,通过诉诸语言共同体对名称使用规则的规约,解释个体追溯因果链的过程,为进一步解读对不可通约性的反驳创造条件。
Some philosophers argue that there are no good arguments supporting Incommensurability. But the argument prefers theoretical descriptiveness to theoretical prescriptiveness,and thus need a kind of further interpretations of the consistence individuals shows in fixing the reference of a same name. Similar inclination could be found in Kuhn’s argument for Incommensurability. According to the argument against Incommensurability in terms of the Causal- historical Theory,the main reason for taking this theoretical orientation lies in a linguistic presupposition. In the process of fixing the reference of a name,the expression containing the name evoke a using rule of the name that could be taken as another premise of an inner reasoning. With this principle,it is possible to form an inner reasoning model. Through inviting the convention made by the linguistic community,explaining the individual process of tracing the causal- chain,we can catch more ideas about the efforts made in refuting Incommensurability.
出处
《兰州学刊》
CSSCI
北大核心
2016年第11期108-114,共7页
基金
国家社科基金后期资助项目"自然种类词项指称理论研究"(项目编号:15FZX012)
关键词
内在推理
不可通约性
指称改变
因果历史理论
语言共同体
inner reasoning
Incommensurability
reference change
causal-historical theory
language community
