15 (II I) CC 3.0 Microsoft Office 2003 Microsoft 46 52 65 1 (1) [L. Laudan, 1981]L. Laudan, 1981] (2) [L. Laudan, 1981]P. Duhem, 1906 (1997): 36-40; Bas van Fraassen, 1980: 3 9-40; M. Carrier, 1991]
(3) [L. Laudan, 1981]Laudan, 1981; A. Fine, 1 984; van Fraassen, 1980: 19-21; 1989: 143-169] 2 (I1) Laudan (a) (central terms) (theoretical entities) (b) (
) 3 (I1) (c) ( ) 4 (I1) (d)
Laudan 5 Laudan Laudan
6 Laudan ( P(S/A) P(S)) Laudan 7 (I2)
Duhem Carrier (classification naturelle) van Fraassen 8 (I2) van Fraassen Species which did not cope with their natural enemies no longer exist. Th
at is why there are only ones who do. In just the same way, I claim that the success of current scientific theories is no miracle. It is not even surprising to the scientific (Darwinist) mind. For any scientific theory is born into a li fe of fierce competition, a jungle red in tooth and claw. Only the successful theories survive. [L. Laudan, 1981]van Fraassen, 1980: 39-40] 9 van Fraassen
T1 T2 T3 Tn T1 T2 T3 Tn T1 [L. Laudan, 1981]J. Leplin, 1997: 8-9] T1 T2 T3 Tn T1 T1 van Fraassen 10 (I3)
(a) (Infere nce to the Best Explanation) (b) IBE ( IBE ) (c) IBE (begging the question) [L. Laudan, 1981]Laudan, 1981; A. Fine, 1984] 11
IBE (1) IBE (2) IBE 12 IBE (I1): Hungerfords objection IBE (1) Hungerfords objection: [L. Laudan, 1981]Lipton, 2004: 142-143] (a)
(b) (redundancy) (c) 13 IBE (I2): Voltaires objection (2) Voltaires objection: [L. Laudan, 1981]Lipton, 2004: 143]
(a) (b) [L. Laudan, 1981]van Fraass en, 1980: 87-92; N. Cartwright, 1983: 4; 88-91] (c) ( Voltaire Voltaire ) (d) 14 IBE (I3): The argument from a bad lot
(3) The argument from a bad lot: [L. Laudan, 1981]S. Psillos, 1999: 215-217] (a) ( ) (b) (c) 1/2 [L. Laudan, 1981]van Fraassen, 1989: 142-143] 15 IBE
(1) IBE IB E (2) IBE ( ) [L. Laudan, 1981]Cartwright, 1983: 4] [L. Laudan, 1981]Lipton, 2004] (3) IBE IBE (4) C. Darwin Origin of Species IBE ( IBE) (5) IBE 16 Darwinian IBE
IBE (1) Darwinian IBE (2) (3) 17 Darwinian IBE
(4) (plausible) (5) Darwin 18 IBE
IBE Darwinian IB E Darwi n 19 IBE 20
P(S/T) 0 ( ) P(S/T) 1 ( ) Therefore, P(T/S) 0 ( ) 21 P(H/E) 0 ( ) P(H/E) 1 ( ) Therefore, P(E/H) 0 ( )
Base Rate Fallacy! ( ) 22 Base rate fallacy 23 24 /
25
26 Observation or detection? 27
28 Maxwells argument Looking at something with the naked eye, Looking at something through a window, Looking at something through a pair of strong glasses,
Looking at something through binoculars, Looking at something through a low-powered microscope, Looking at something through a high-powered microscope, and so on. 29 2 2 Microsoft Office 2003 Microsoft 46 52 65 1-33
2 Larry Laudan (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of Science 48 (1):19-49. 4 6 52 65 Duhem, P. M. M., 1954 (1906), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, P. P. Wiener (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press. van Fraassen, B. C., 1980, The Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.39-40. Martin Carrier (1991). What is Wrong with the Miracle Argument?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 22 (1):23-36.
46 52 65 Larry Laudan (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of Science 48 (1):19-49. Arthur Fine (1984). And Not Anti-Realism Either. Nos 18 (1):51-65. van Fraassen, B. C., 1980, The Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.39-40. van Fraassen, B.C., 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon. pp.143-169. 46 52 65 30 3-5
8 8-9 Laudan Species which did not cope with theories survive
Larry Laudan (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of Science 48 (1):19-49. 46 52 65 Duhem, P. M. M., 1954 (1906), The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, P. P. Wiener (tr.), Princeton: Princeton University Press. Martin Carrier (1991). What is Wrong with the Miracle Argument?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 22 (1):23-36. 46 52 65 van Fraassen, B. C., 1980, The Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.39-40. 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon. pp.143169. 46 52 65 31
10 T1 Jarrett Leplin (1997). A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism. Oxford University Press. pp8-9. 46 52 65 11 Larry Laudan (1981). A Confutation of Convergent Realism. Philosophy of
Science 48 (1):19-49. Arthur Fine (1984). And Not Anti-Realism Either. Nos 18 (1):51-65. 46 52 65 Hungerfords objection Voltaires objection Peter Lipton (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. 46 52 65 van Fraassen, B. C., 1980, The Scientific Image, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.39-40. 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon. pp.143169. Nancy Cartwright (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University Press. pp.88-91. 46 52 65
13-14 14 32 15 The argument from a bad lot
Psillos, S., Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth, London: Routledge. pp.215-217. 46 52 65 15 1/2 van Fraassen, B. C., 1989, Laws and Symmetry, Oxford: Clarendon. pp.143-169. 46 52 65 16 IBE Nancy Cartwright (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford University
Press. pp.88-91. Peter Lipton (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group. 46 52 65 29 Looking at something with the naked eyehighpowered microscope, and so on. Maxwell, G., 1962, On the Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities, in H. Feigl & G. Maxwell (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume III, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.pp.5-9 46 52 65 33
23 34
