The Role of Models in Science
The Role of Models in Science
复制标题
模型在科学中的作用
DOI：
10.1086/286874
复制
发表时间：
1945
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
N. Wiener
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Rosenblueth;N. Wiener
物理学。宇宙的任何实质性部分都不是如此简单，以至于可以在不抽象的情况下把握和控制它。抽象就是用一个结构相似但结构更简单的模型来取代所考虑的宇宙的一部分。因此，模型，一方面是正式的或智力的，另一方面是材料的，因此是科学程序的核心需要。本文的目的是分析不同形式的科学模型的有用性和局限性。调查人员往往不知道自己的方法论程序，也不一定要有这种意识。即使实验者没有意识到所有好的实验都是好的抽象，也可以做出重要的科学贡献，特别是实验性质的贡献。实验就是一个问题。如果问题不准确，就很难得到准确的答案；事实上，愚蠢的答案--即不一致、不一致或无关的实验结果--通常表明是一个愚蠢的问题。并不是所有的科学问题都可以直接进行实验。问题有一个等级，其等级由所寻求的答案的概括性决定。因此，某种药物，例如西巴定，对神经冲动的特定表现，例如尖峰电位有什么作用的问题，在生理学问题的层次结构中属于相对较低的水平，因为它涉及的是一种狭隘的限制现象。实验者可能会精确地表述和回答这个问题，但对它的“更高”、更一般和更抽象的含义，比如属于某个化学基团的所有药物对峰电位的作用，或者峰电位幅度与神经活动的其他表现之间的关系，只有模糊、直观的理解。通常情况下，“高”阶题是非常抽象和笼统的问题，不能直接接受实验测试。它们必须被分解成更具体的术语，这些术语可以直接翻译成实验程序。因此，在表述一般陈述的检验的过程中，或在从实验数据建立理论的相反过程中，涉及两种性质上不同的操作。其中一个操作是在抽象的尺度上向上或向下移动；另一个操作需要将抽象转换为实验，反之亦然。优秀的实验者在第二个步骤中有不同寻常的能力；他能够自由地交换符号
physics. No substantial part of the universe is so simple that it can be grasped and controlled without abstraction. Abstraction consists in replacing the part of the universe under consideration by a model of similar but simpler structure. Models, formal or intellectual on the one hand, or material on the other, are thus a central necessity of scientific procedure. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the usefulness and the limitations of the diverse forms of scientific models. An investigator is often not aware of his methodological procedure, nor is it indispensable that he should have this awareness. Important scientific contributions, especially of an experimental character, can be made even though the experimenter does not realize that all good experiments are good abstractions. An experiment is a question. A precise answer is seldom obtained if the question is not precise; indeed, foolish answers-i.e., inconsistent, discrepant or irrelevant experimental results-are usually indicative of a foolish question. Not all scientific questions are directly amenable to experiment. There is a hierarchy of questions whose levels are determined by the generality of the answers sought. Thus the question of what a certain drug, e.g., cebadine, does to a certain manifestation of a nerve impulse, e.g., the spike potential, belongs to a relatively "low" level in the hierarchy of physiological questions, because it deals with a narrowly restricted phenomenon. An experimenter might formulate and answer that question precisely, and yet have only a vague, intuitive appreciation of its "higher", more general and abstract implications, such as the action of all drugs belonging to a certain chemical group on the spike potential, or the relations between spike potential amplitude and other manifestations of nerve activity. As a rule "high" order, very abstract and general questions, are not directly amenable to an experimental test. They have to be broken down into more specific terms, terms directly translatable into experimental procedure. There are thus two qualitatively different operations involved in the process of formulating the test of a general statement, or in the converse process of building a theory from experimental data. One of these operations consists in moving up or down the scale of abstraction; the other requires the translation of abstraction into experiment, or vice versa. The good experimenter has unusual ability in the second procedure; he is capable of freely interchanging symbols