最近我的妹妹有点怪,弟弟的惊喜,下课后的契约 采薇
Description of the method:方法说明：
汉森提到，科学上存在以下情况：（1）两个微生物切片在显微镜下相同的细胞，一个看到高尔基体，另一个人说观察到的只是人为造成的凝固染色技术差；（2）两个生物学家观察到他是同一种单细胞动物变形虫，一个人说他看到的是单细胞动物，另一个人说他看到的是非细胞动物。（3）随着日出开放的第谷登山，他说，当他看到太阳是固定的，是地球围绕太阳运动，而第谷观测到的地球是固定的，是其他天体围绕地球旋转（米勒，2002年，第14页）。在这些情况下，正统的解释是：“当然，他们也看到了同样的事情。因为他们做了相同的观察，所以他们都是从相同的视觉材料开始的。但是他们用不同的方式解释他们所看到的（Rustin，2009年，第32页）。这种解释的出发点是观察，观察是获得感官体验的过程。汉森反对这样的观点，即所有这些东西都是在科学实验中，不同的科学家观察相同的东西并得到不同的观察结果。他对汉森论证的解释，需要把握以下关键词：（1）“意象与陈述在逻辑类型上是不同的，视觉意象与陈述之间的锯物有许多复杂的步骤。我们的视觉被图像所支配；然而，科学知识首先是一种语言（Watson、Emery和Bayliss，2012年，第21页）。正如我想说的，这是图像和语言的结合。至少，视觉的概念包括感官概念和知识概念。
Hansen mentioned exist in the science of the following circumstances: (1) two microbiologist slice under the microscope the same cells, says one saw the golgi apparatus, another person said the observed only artificially caused by poor dyeing technology of coagulation; (2) two biologists observed the same single-celled animal -- amoeba, one person said to see a single-celled animal, while the other said he saw a non-celled animal. (3) open as the sunrise with tycho mountaineering, said as he saw the sun is fixed, is that the earth moves around the sun, while the tycho observed earth is fixed, is other celestial bodies rotate around the earth (Miller, 2002，p.14). In these cases, the orthodox explanation is: "of course, they see the same thing. Because they did the same observation, they all started with the same visual material. But they explain what they see in different ways (Rustin, 2009, p.32). The starting point for this explanation is the observation that observation is the process of gaining sensory experience. Hansen rejects the idea that all these things are in scientific experiments, and that different scientists observe the same thing and get different observations. His explanation for Hansen argument, we need to grasp the following key words: (1) "image and a statement on the logical type is different, between the visual image and a statement of the saw things there are many complicated steps. Our visual sense is dominated by images; Scientific knowledge, however, is first and foremost a language (Watson, Emery, and Bayliss, 2012, p.21). As I almost want to say, it's the combination of images and language. At the very least, the concept of seeing includes sensory concepts and knowledge concepts.
从这句话中我们可以看出，他主张观察不仅是一种感官体验（体验）的过程，包括在知识论的基础上，根据观察者（联想）的推理、判断，结果不是体验，而是经验和理论推理，即事实上，我们通常称呼——，即“看到陈述”。这种观察概念可以称为汉森的使用（Barlow等人，2005年，第202页）。
As we can see from this statement, he advocated to observe not only is a sensory experience (the experience) process, including on the basis of the theory of knowledge, according to the observer (lenovo) reasoning, judgment, the result is not experience, but experience and theory inference that is the fact that we usually appellation --, that is "to see the statement". This concept of observation can be called Hansen's use (Barlow et.,al, 2005, p.202).
Critique:
Strength
There is an objective reason for Hansen's use: first, it is impossible for scientists to make an exploratory restructuring of experience every single time, otherwise the science would not progress. "` see... By weaving knowledge into the process of seeing, we are free from repeated recognition of all things... ". Second, previous scientific theories have become scientists' beliefs because they have withstood scientific tests. It is the belief, table Now see it as a bond between really experience, according to their understanding of the world is the natural effect of faith, to really understand the results of this understanding is to experience the true and already have faith attitude really natural delivery (Bligh et.,al, 2013, p.23). Therefore, people naturally view things as objective and neutral things. He doesn't say, "I think what I see is... "" I see... ". Third, when the scientist expresses and reports his observations, it is the requirement of economic principles to adopt the accepted paradigm, namely the empirical mode, in his own and the scientific community. It is not appropriate, or even impossible, to ask scientists to describe complex, cumbersome descriptions in the first level of observation. The understanding of Hansen's use is of great theoretical significance in scientific philosophy: the fact that each of us treats it as an objective reality is not objective or neutral. Truth is a product of experience and of existing conceptual patterns, not pure experience, of course, influenced by existing knowledge and permeated with theories. The researchers built the facts on the basis of existing experience and established conceptual models (Dunn, 2004, p.43). In the process, as a result of the idea of guiding role, the researchers habitually, inadvertently overlook some of these experiences, add some experience, not one of them to include yourself paradigm, the concept of reasoning Hansen saw bear claw shape, said to see a bear on the tree, that is combined with thought of the rest of the bear. Therefore, because of the limits of experience, have experience with ideas limitations and processing process of partial failure could lead to a deviation from the actual facts, the fact is subjective, build, is wrong; The truth is actually a subjective attitude. It is important to understand this point; Facts can not be regarded as the reliable basis for our reasoning. The contradiction of theory cannot be solved by the fact( Elfer, 2006, p.232).
Weakness
First, Hansen's use was cancelled. According to Hansen, "the prior knowledge of x forms the observation of x" (which can be called the theoretical decision proposition), so if you know nothing about x, it means that you cannot observe x; If the knowledge of a certain thing determines his observation of something, then the mind cannot be changed. This means that x can never be observed, and thus can never form its knowledge. The hansons may, in response, respond that the knowledge of other things can be transferred to knowledge of x. The problem is that young children with food, drink and instinct (belong to animals have stimulation reaction features), namely, popper said "unconscious, natural expectation", and the meaning is not inborn. So, according to hanson, young children can't observe. If young children cannot observe, then he cannot learn language, gain knowledge further and observe it further, so that he can never observe (Elfer, 2012, p.232). The hansons, who may have revised their views, responded by saying that knowledge of others can be transferred to knowledge as a child. It is impossible to answer the question of how the knowledge of others is transferred to the knowledge of young children, and the question of where other people's knowledge comes from. Therefore, the persistence of the results of Hansen's use was canceled, and the result was that the hansons did not want to see it either. Second, Hansen's use has eliminated theory and reasoning. The interpretation of experience as a result of observation leads to no distinction between theoretical results and observation. The interpretation of experience exists in many situations, which can be divided according to the time of the sensory contact, the observation of the scene, and the absence of sensory perception. But according to Hansen, we can't tell as distances from the sensory object contact time theoretical results and observations of the standard, because from the senses contact objects very long after the result of reasoning very close contact with the sensory object time (time can be a very limited but greater than zero, it can't be at the same time) reasoning results there are differences in the amount of time, just are not observed directly but the interpretation of "feeling material". Nor can I distinguish between theoretical results and observations based on whether or not we observe the scene, because we can't deny that we can see the results that we normally see as theories at the observation site; Similarly, we can't distinguish between theoretical results and observation results by observing objects as a boundary. Therefore, to adhere to Hansen's point of view, one's understanding will boil down to observation. Correspondingly, the insistence on the interpretation of experience as an observation means that all scientific activity is reduced to the observation, and the reasoning is lost by the observed ablation. In a word, there will be no theory and no reasoning, which is in conflict with our presupposition about the existence of scientific theory. Because of this, he cites the opening of the third instance as the elder brother of white, such as several generations of scientists have struggled to demonstrate, obviously belongs to the theoretical conclusion of the east west so simply as observations. Third, Hansen's use leads to subjectivism and relativism. Hansson's usage can draw two corollaries: one is the construction of facts and the non-objective proposition, and the other is the observation of facts as the observation of the results of observation. In addition to the two Hansen observe the proposition of the theory of and a watch proposition: as experience scientific and philosophical subject universally accepted fundamental difference, observation is the ultimate source of scientific criterion, is the way of truth, such as bo said: "science admitted only can use observation and experimentation confirmed dependencies." "Here," said Einstein, "there is no doubt that the observed facts are the highest." We can call it the final polarity of observation and the sentence. Hanson did not deny the proposition. With these three propositions, the results of the observations are final and judgmental. Thus, the ultimate polarity and determination of the facts are presented. Once the facts have both non-objectivity, final polarity and judgment, it is logical to draw the conclusion of subjectivism and relativism. This conclusion seems to explain the diversity, the stage of scientific theory to choose, and the choice of a scientific theory of one-way, the backward the history of science are incompatible, is a even hanson sent most of the members of the result of trying to avoid. Fourth, Hansen's use leads to a conservative view of science. An innovative scientist not only pays attention to the experience of the same theory, but also takes a cautious attitude to close the note, attaches importance to the experience that is inconsistent with the theory, and pays attention to how to disagree. Then, according to this new experience and the sum of the old experience, new. This is the quality of science (Greenfield, 2012, p.109). According to Hansen's theory, the prior knowledge of x determines the observation of x, and the observation is necessarily consistent with prior knowledge. Since observation is consistent with prior knowledge, it is possible to have conventional science and not to have scientific life. There is no new object, no new concept, no new science. This leads to the conservative view of science, which is inconsistent with the fact of scientific development. |
