跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.180.223) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 15:59
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:邱獻儀
研究生(外文):Chiu, Hsien-I
論文名稱:生物目的性現象的科學說明之研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study of Scientific Explanations of Teleology-Related Phenomena in Life
指導教授:陳瑞麟陳瑞麟引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chen, Ruey-Lin
口試委員:林正弘王榮麟林從一吳秀瑾
口試日期:2012-07-23
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立中正大學
系所名稱:哲學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:哲學學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:209
中文關鍵詞:目的論科學說明生物目的性模型論
外文關鍵詞:Teleologyscientific representationsgoal-directed phenomenamodel theory
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:342
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:72
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
本論文探討生物目的性現象要如何被理解與說明的問題,主要回答「以目的論來說明生物目的性現象的說明模式是否可被保留?」的問題。目的論通常與「生命現象是超自然創造者有意識設計的證據」之觀點關連在一起。雖然達爾文的演化論被提出之後這樣的想法已被放棄,但生物學家與哲學家們仍然對於該如何說明生命現象的特殊性存有爭論。這反應了三個反對目的論的論題:目的論是(1)科學發展中的錯誤理論;(2)錯誤的意向性投射;(3)與因果說明的架構衝突。本論文爭論這三個反對論題都無法成立,因此目的論的說明可以被保留。
第一章討論生物目的性現象從古希臘時期到邏輯經驗論的思想演變歷程。十七世紀科學革命之前,帶有神性色彩的目的論觀點是主流;科學革命之後機械論興起,在此時代背景下使用目的論來解釋生物目的性現象開始式微,然而在目的論的發展脈絡這邊仍有Paley的神創論、以及後來生機論的目的論。歷史顯示目的論並未因科學進展而被消除。二十世紀初期哲學家朝向化約目的概念的方向來說明目的性現象,如Hempel與Nagel的功能化約方案。然而,目的概念的化約工作遇到難題,使得哲學家朝向使目的論可與科學相容的自然化方向發展。
自然化目的論希望消除目的概念的神秘性,使其符合因果說明的科學架構。自然化取向從Wright開始,接著是 Commins、Millikan、Mayr、Brandon、Ruse、與Toepfer。從第二到第四章,本論文一一討論並評析他們的理論觀點,顯示他們的立場光譜雖然分佈在反目的論和目的論之間,但都不能支持消除目的論的必要性。
為了回應第二個疑慮,本論文第五章回到一個基本問題:被目的論說明的現象究竟是什麼?根據我們的分析,生物目的性現象的目的導向性有三種:(a)生物特徵或器官的目的(生物功能)、(b)生物系統的目的(維繫系統穩定存續的系統功能)、以及(c)生物功能和系統功能趨向生存的目的(功能的來源)。這些現象顯示目的性現象並不是錯誤的意向性投射。又其中的(b)和(c)既可用目的論的說明模式,也可以用因果說明的模式來說明:(b)因為可使用整體性的概念來說明、而(c)可使用整體性與適應性的概念來說明,因而是目的論的。有人可能會質問:如果它們可以使用因果說模式,為什麼我們還要保留目的論的說明?這涉及目的論說明、因果說明與科學說明之間的關係。
第六章我應用Giere所提出的模型哲學之觀點來定位科學說明:科學表徵活動是行為人為了特定的認知目的,意圖使用模型來表徵一部分世界的認知活動。在此架構下,目的論與非目的論都是生物學家或認知者為了瞭解生物目的性現象,以不同的認知模型來表徵該現象的科學表徵活動。這蘊含了科學說明的多元主義觀點。在科學說明的模型論觀點下,目的論說明與因果說明不僅不相互衝突,而且都具有不同的認知價值,分別增進我們對生物世界的豐富理解。
根據本文的分析,由於質疑目的論的三個理由都不成立,因此本文結論說:目的論作為說明生物目的性現象的說明模式,具有保留的價值。
In this dissertation, I discuss the goal-directed phenomena in life, and attempt to answer the question of ‘should we hold teleology as an explanation for the phenomena of life?’ Theology is usually related to the evidence of exist of Gods, but after Darwin’s evolutionary theory, the idea is abandoned. Although, the puzzle of end-related phenomena in life still disturb philosophers. It reflects three objections to teleology: (1) the bad reputation of teleology in history; (2) the doubt of teleomentalism (3) inconsistency with causal explanations. I claim that all of them are base on false beliefs and we should keep teleology in explaining the phenomena of life for better understanding.
My analysis begins with the discussions of end-related phenomena in nature from Plato to modern times. Before 17th, the mainstream for explaining the phenomena of life is teleology, but after the scientific revolution, materialism became popular. In the early twenty century, philosophers try to reduce teleological explanations to causal explanations, like Hempel and Nagel. But due to the difficulty from reducing approach, it turns to naturalize teleology. It shows that teleology did not been eliminated from history, but only performance in different ways.
Naturalize teleology aims to reconcile teleology and materialism,and it began from Wright’s etiological approach, and then Cummins, Millikan, Mayr, Brandon, Ruse and Toepfer. According to my analysis, I point out that their views are not good enough to eliminate teleology.
In order to evaluate the second doubt, I deal with the structure of end-related phenomena in life and suggest that a completed explanation of vital phenomena should include three different kinds of ends: (a) the ends of a function; (b) the ends of biological systems; and (c) the end of organisms (flourishing). It shows that teleological explanations could not be teleomentalism. In the explanations of (b) and (c), it may relate to the concept of holism: for the stable exit or goods of whole, and (c) may also relate to the concept of adaptation: contributions for flourishing. Though (b) and (c) could be teleology, causal explanations apply to (a), (b) and (c). However, if (b) and (c) could be explained by causal explanations, why we keep holding teleology? In order to reply this objection, I attend to the relations between teleological/non-teleological explanations and scientific explanations.
Here, I apply Giere’s agent-based conception of models to scientific explanations. From his point of view, scientific representations are such a cognitive activity that agents (1) intend; (2) to use model, M; (3) to represent a part of the world, W; (4) for some purpose, P. In this picture, biologists or agents intend to use the model of teleology/non-teleological to represent the purposeful phenomena in life for the end of better understanding of life. It implies the view of scientific pluralism. In such way, teleological explanations are compatible with causal explanations. In a word, teleological and non-teleological explanations as scientific representations for end-related phenomena of life are both valuable ways to catch the nature of life. It provides a vivid and fruitful understanding to it.
In the end, I conclude that because of all objections to teleology are invalid, teleology as a explanation for the phenomena of life should be held.
內容目錄
導論 1
第一節研究背景與目的 1
第二節目的論說明的層次與發展歷史 4
第三節生物目的論的理論策略 12
第四節從目的論到非目的論的光譜 14
第五節論文架構與章節安排 22
第一章傳統目的論到功能的化約方案 25
第一節傳統目的論與物質論 25
(一)原子論與柏拉圖的神性目的論 25
(二)亞里斯多德的內在目的論 30
1.生物繁盛論證(the argument from flourishing) 31
2.規律論證(the argument from regularity) 32
3.模式論證(the argument from pattern) 34
(三)唯物論與傳統目的論 35
第二節生機論的失敗與目的論的轉變 37
(一)機械論與原子論的復興 37
(二)神創論與生機論 39
第三節功能的化約方案:Hempel與Nagel的方案 44
(一)Nagel和Hempel的功能分析 44
(二)評述法則演繹模型的功能分析 48
1.邏輯經驗論與科學說明 48
2.生物功能與說明 49
第二章溯源進路的功能分析 53
第一節自然化目的論的轉向——Wright的溯源論分析 54
(一)目的性說明的定位 54
(二)目的論分析的前提 56
(三)溯源論的功能分析 60
(四)機械論觀點與其他的目的論分析 64
(五) 討論 69
第二節Millikan的歷史溯源論分析 72
(一)歷史溯源論中的基本概念 72
1.衍嗣(Reproductions) 72
2.低階衍嗣建立的構家族(First-Order Reproductively Established Families) 73
(二)標準說明(Normal explanations)以及直接恰當功能的一般性條件 76
(三)歷史性說明 77
(四)歷史溯源論的相關澄清 79
1.演化特徵VS繁衍成功的特徵 79
2.功能的兩種類型 80
(五)評析 82
第三章系統進路的功能分析 85
第一節Cummins的自然化系統功能之分析 85
(一)功能分析的兩個錯誤假設 86
(二)執行功能的項目與功能本身的關係 86
(三)溯源論與功能 91
(四)系統能力的功能分析之進路 93
(五)討論 97
第二節Toepfer的整體論功能分析 101
(一)有機體、功能概念與目的論 102
(二)生物學與目的論 107
(三)分析與討論 108
第四章功能來源的分析——演化論與目的論 115
第一節達爾文演化論 115
第二節Mayr的機械演化說明 120
第三節Brandon的適應性目的論 123
第四節Ruse的準目的論 127
(一)Ruse的主要論點 128
1.目的性說明不同於因果說明 128
2.生物是宛如目的(設計)的 130
3.目的論的思考在科學研究中扮演啟發性的角色 131
(二)對Ruse之觀點的分析 132
1.目的說明的結構 133
2.目的性現象與目的說明 135
3.目的論的啟發性角色 136
第五章生物目的性現象、目的概念與目的論 139
第一節目的概念與目的性的現象 139
(一)目的相關概念的指涉 139
1.意向性的目的 143
2.一般功能的目的 145
3.系統功能或整體性的目的 146
4.其它種類的目的 147
(二)生物的目的性現象 148
1.生物功能的現象 148
2.自我調節的現象與整體性 149
3.生物生存的驅向性的現象 151
第二節目的性說明的結構與目的論的爭議起源 154
(一)生物目的性現象的目的與目的論說明和非目的論說明 154
(二)反對目的論的初步理由 156
(三)對目的論的相關澄清 158
1.倒轉因果 158
2.錯誤的意向性投射 159
3.科學倒退 160
第三節生物目的性現象之目的的說明架構 161
第四節歷史中的目的論 166
第六章目的論、科學說明與模型論 171
第一節目的論的說明與非目的的說明 171
第二節目的論與科學說明 173
(一)對目的論的進一步質疑 173
(二)科學說明的特徵 177
第三節認知模型的說明觀點 179
1.語言表徵與模型表徵 181
2.相似性(similarity)與同構(isomorphism) 181
3.模型的不同類別與關係 182
4.科學表徵:一個意向性的觀點 183
5.語言的語用(usage-based)理論 184
6.模型的實在性 184
第四節從模型觀點看目的論說明 186
結論 193
參考書目 203
參考書目
Allen, C. (2009). Teleological Notions in Biology. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 200.).
Ariew, A. (2002). Platonic and Aristotelian Roots of Teleological Arguments. In A. Ariew, R. Cummins, & M. Perlman (Eds.), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology (pp. 8–32). Oxford University Press.
Ariew, A. (2007). Teleology. In D. L. Hull & M. Ruse (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology (Vol. 43, pp. 160–181). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1002/sce.3730450115
Aristotle. (1980). Aristotle’s Physics. Peripatetic Press.
Aristotle. (2009). Metaphysics - Aristotle. NuVision Publications.
Aristotle, 苗力田, & 李秋零. (2001). 形而上學: 附殘篇. 知書房出版社.
Bedau, M. (1992). Where’s the Good in Teleology? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52(4), 781–806. doi:10.2307/2107911
Bigelow, J., & Pargetter, R. (1987). Functions. The Journal of Philosophy, 84(4), 181–196.
Boorse, C. (1976). Wright on Functions. The Philosophical Review, 85(1), 70–86.
Brandon, R. N. (1981). Biological teleology: Questions and explanations. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 12(2), 91–105. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(81)90015-7
Brandon, R. N. (1996). Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Buller, D. J. (1999). Function, Selection, and Design. Design. State University of New York Press.
Campbell, N. A., & Jane B. Reece. (2005). Biology: 20 DNA Technology and Genomics. Biology (7, illustr.). Pearson/Benjamin Cummings.
Cannon, W. B. (1939). Self-regulation of the human body. In P. Wiener (Ed.), The Wisdom of the Body (pp. 19–25). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, inc.
Charles, D. (1988). Aristotle on Hypothetical Necessity and Irreducibility. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 69, 227–80.
Cooper, J. M. (1987). Hypothetical necessity and natural teleology. In A. Gotthelf & J. G. Lennox (Eds.), Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology (pp. 243–274). Cambridge University Press.
Copleston, F. C. (2003). A History of Philosophy, Volume 1. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional Analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(20), 741–765.
Cummins, R. (2002). Neo-Teleology. In A. Ariew, R. Cummins, & M. Perlman (Eds.), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology (pp. 157–172). Oxford University Press.
Dampier, W. C. (1948). A History of Science and Its Relations with Philosophy and Religion. CUP Archive.
Descartes, R. (1644). Principles of Philosophy. (V. R. Miller, Ed.). Springer.
Giere, R. N. (1990). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (1999). Using Models to Represent Reality. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery (pp. 41–57). Springer.
Giere, R. N. (2001). The nature and function of models. The Behavioral and brain sciences, 24(6), 1060–1060.
Giere, R. N. (2004). How Models Are Used to Represent Reality. Philosophy of Science, 71(December), 742–752.
Giere, R. N. (2009). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2), 269–281. doi:10.1007/s11229-009-9506-z
Hempel, C. G. (1965). The Logic of Functional Analysis. Aspects of scientific explanation: and other essays in the philosophy of science. free press.
Horan, B. L. (1989). Functional Explanations in Sociobiology. Biology and Philosophy, (4), 131–158.
Hume, D. (1740). A Treatise of Human Nature. Digireads.com Publishing.
Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment. (P. Guyer, Ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (2007). On the use of teleological principles in philosophy. In G. Zöller & R. B. Louden (Eds.), Anthropology, History, and Education (pp. 195–218). Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I., & 鄧曉芒. (2004). 判斷力批判. 聯經出版.
Kitcher, P. (1981). Explanatory Unification and the Causal Structure of the World. Structure, 505(Friedman 1974), 71–91.
Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of biological Thought. The Growth of biological Thought. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Mayr, E. (1988). Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist. Harvard University Press.
Mayr, E. (1998). This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World. Harvard University Press.
McLaughlin, P. (2001). What Functions Explain: Functional Explanation and Self-Reproducing Systems. Cambridge University Press.
Millikan, R. G. (1984). Language, thought and other biological categories. New foundations for realism. Book. The MIT Press.
Millikan, R. G. (1989a). An Ambiguity in the Notion “ Function .” Biology and Philosophy, 4, 172–176.
Millikan, R. G. (1989b). Biosemantics. Journal of Philosophy, 86(6), 281–297.
Millikan, R. G. (1989c). In Defense of Proper Functions. Philosophy of Science, 56(2), 288–302.
Nagel, E. (1979). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Hackett.
Nerlich, G. (1979). What Can Geometry Explain? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 69–83. doi:10.1093/bjps/30.1.69
Norton, D. F. (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Hume. (D. F. Norton & J. A. Taylor, Eds.) (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Paley, W. (1859). Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Gould and Lincoln.
Peacocke, C. (1992). A Study of Concepts. Mit Press.
Plato. (2006). The Republic. (R. E. Allen, Ed.). Yale University Press.
Plato. (2008a). Theaetetus. 1st World Publishing.
Plato. (2008b). Timaeus. (許宏彬 & 林巧玲, Eds.). 1st World Publishing.
Plato. (2008c). Phaedo. 1st World Publishing.
Robert, J. S. (2004). Exemplars. Embryology, Epigenesis and Evolution (pp. 23–33). Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, A. (1985). The Structure of Biological Science. Cambridge University Press.
Rosenberg, J. F. (1987). Review of Millikan’s Language, Thought and other Biological Categories. Noûs, 21(3), 430–434.
Ruse, M. (1981). Teleology Redux. Scientific Philosophy Today, 299–309.
Ruse, M. (2000a). Teleology: yesterday, today, and tomorrow? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 31(1), 213–232.
Ruse, M. (2000b). Is Evolutionary Biology a Diffent Kind of Science? Aquinas, 43, 251–282.
Ruse, M. (2002). Evolutionary Biology and Teleological Thinking. In Andre Ariew, R. Cummins, & M. Perlman (Eds.), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology (pp. 33–59). New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, B. (2004). History of Western Philosophy. Routledge.
Russell, E. S. (1945). The Directiveness of Organic Activities. Cambridge University Press.
Russell, E. S. (1950). The “Drive” Element in Life. (Philip Wiener, Ed.)The British journal for the philosophy of science, 1(2), 108–116.
Salmon, W. C. (2006). Four Decades of Scientific Explanation. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Schaffner, K. F. (1993). Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Medicine. University of Chicago press.
Schlick, M. (1925). Philosophy of organic life. In H. Feigl & M. Brodbeck (Eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Science (pp. 523–558). Appletion-Century- Crofts.
Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution (Vol. 1996). University of Chicago Press.
Simpson, J., & Weiner, E. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary: Blue Leather Edition Twenty-Volume Set. Oxford University Press, USA.
Stephen H. Kellert, Helen E. Longino, & C. Kenneth Waters. (2006). Scientific Pluralism(Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science ) (Vol. 2006). U of Minnesota Press.
Steven, S. (2010). 科學革命: 一段不存在的歷史. (許宏彬 & 林巧玲, Eds.). 左岸文化出版.
Sylvia S. Mader. (2006). Mader’s生物學(Biology, 8/e). (朱雲瑋, Ed.) (2nd ed.). 麥格羅希爾出版.
Toepfer, G. (2011). Teleology and its constitutive role for biology as the science of organized systems in nature. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.05.010
Weber, M. (2005). Holism, Coherence and the Dispositional Concept of Functions. Annals in the History and Philosophy of Biology, 10, 189–201.
Wesley C. Salmon. (1984). Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton University Press.
Woodfield, A. (1976). Teleology. Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, J. (2003). Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation (Vol. 7). Oxford University Press.
Woodward, J. (2009). Scientific Explanation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Woodward, J. (2011). Scientific Explanation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/scientific-explanation/
Wright, L. (1972). Explanation and Teleology. Philosophy of Science, 39(2), 204–218.
Wright, L. (1973). Functions. Philosophical Review, 82(2), 139–168.
Wright, L. (1976). Teleological Explanations: An Etiological Analysis of Goals and Functions. University of California Press.
林正弘. (1985). 知識‧邏輯‧科學哲學. 東大圖書公司.
陳瑞麟. (2009). 孟德爾究竟發現了什麼?一個實驗發現的典型模式. 科技、醫療與社會, 9.
陳瑞麟. (2010). 科學哲學: 理論與歷史. 群學.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top