期刊文献+

生物学哲学何以可能——基于生物学哲学三大争论的文献研究

How Is It Possible for Philosophy of Biology——Based on Literatures of the Three Main Issues of Contemporary Debates
原文传递
导出
摘要 当代生物学哲学存在激烈思想碰撞,其中三大争论影响深远:生物学哲学是基于生物学的智慧还是科学哲学的分支?达尔文主义是科学还是哲学?生物学能否还原为物理学?笔者所在课题组基于大量西方生物学哲学一手文献,旨在通过系统文献的爬梳剔抉,重新思考并追问生物学哲学的性质。我们以为,生物学哲学并不囿于科学哲学的一个分支,更可能是一种以生物学为基础的有别于传统物理主义的强调整体性和系统性的哲学新智慧。 There are spirited debates in the contemporary philosophy of biology,among which the three main arguments have far-reaching influence:Is the philosophy of biology based on biology or a branch of philosophy of science?Does Darwinism belong to science or philosophy?Is it possible to reduce biology to physics?The author’s research group has accumulated a lot of valuable literatures of the philosophy of biology during studying abroad for several years,and so the purpose of this paper is to select and catalog the literatures of the debates above and to rethink the nature of the philosophy of biology on this basis.We may think that philosophy of biology is not a branch of the philosophy of science and is more likely to be a new biological wisdom emphasizing integrality and systematicness,which is different from the traditional philosophy based on physicalism.
作者 米丹 安维复 MI Dan;AN Wei-fu(School of Marxism,East China University of Science and Technology,Shanghai 200237,China;Department of Philosophy,East China Normal University,Shanghai 200241,China;School of Marxism,Shanghai Jiao Tong University,Shanghai 200240,China)
出处 《科学技术哲学研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2020年第1期104-110,共7页 Studies in Philosophy of Science and Technology
基金 2018年教育部人文社科项目“生物学哲学基本范畴及其争论的文献研究”(18YJC720014) 2014年国家社会科学重大课题“西方科学思想多语种文献编目及研究”(14ZBD019) 2016年上海市哲社项目“西方生物学哲学争论的文献考察”(2016BZX001)
关键词 生物学哲学 文献 争论 philosophy of biology literatures debates
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献16

  • 1Steve Fuller, Philosophy of Science and its Discontents, New York: The Guilford press, 1993, introduction x. 被引量:1
  • 2Gary L. Hardcastle and Alan W. Richardson, Logical Empiricism in North America, University of Minnesota press, 2003, introduction ,viii. 被引量:1
  • 3Thomas Uebel, Some Remarks on Current History of Analytical Philosophy of Science, in Stadler (ed.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010, p.9. 被引量:1
  • 4Michael Friedman, Dynamics of Reason, U.S, Stanford: CSLI Publications 2001, p.24. 被引量:1
  • 5Thomas Uebel, Some Remarks on Current History of Analytical Philosophy of Science, in Stadler (ed.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010, p.31, p.31, p.19. 被引量:1
  • 6Gary Gutting, Contiontal Philosophy of Science, Blackwell Publishing Lid, 2005, introduction. 被引量:1
  • 7F. Stadler(ed.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, Springer, 2010, pp.7-8. 被引量:1
  • 8Cristlna Chimisso, Aspects of Current History of Philosophy of Science, in French tradition, In Stadler (ed.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, Springer Science+Business Media B.V, 2010, pp.42-43. 被引量:1
  • 9Thomas Uebel, Some Remarks on Current History of Analytical Philosophy of Science, in Stadler (ed.), The Present Situation in the Philosophy of Science, The Philosophy of Science in a European Perspective, Springer Science+Business Media B.V, 2010, p.17. 被引量:1
  • 10Michael Friedman, Dynamics of Reason, U.S, Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2001, Preface, p.44. 被引量:1

共引文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部