Fundamental Disputations: The Philosophical Debates that Governed American Physics, 1939–1993
Fundamental Disputations: The Philosophical Debates that Governed American Physics, 1939–1993
复制标题
基本争论：主导美国物理学的哲学争论，1939-1993
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Joseph D. Martin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joseph D. Martin
粒子物理学家和固态物理学家之间的哲学辩论在整个世纪的后半叶激烈地进行着，因为这两个分支学科都在争夺财政支持、社会认可和学术声望。他们的分歧取决于基础研究的性质。粒子物理学界采用了一种还原论的方法，认为基本物理定律是那些支配物质和能量的最小成分的定律。在一定程度上，为了回应这一立场，固态物理学家发展了一系列关于什么类型的物理学可能是基础的更宽容的观点，所有这些都强调了更高层次特征的重要性，坚持认为在许多复杂程度上的研究可能会产生基本的洞察力。本文追溯了关于基本性的争论，这场争论既源于物理学家在建立专业基础设施时遇到的具体问题，也源于冷战时期美国对资助他们研究的需求。通过探索物理学家如何在机构背景下发展哲学立场，并在他们的修辞中部署这些立场，我认为，第一，专业压力的动机和施加影响的建设，这样的观点，第二，哲学观点有一个相互指导作用的机构和专业发展的冷战物理学，第三，这些观点进一步弯曲，钝化，并在高风险的修辞话语中被重塑。这个故事所通过的案例研究表明，在考察科学机构、社区和等级制度的历史发展时，对这种哲学承诺的进一步关注是必要的。
A philosophical debate between particle physicists and solid state physicists roiled as these subdisciplines competed for financial support, social approbation, and intellectual prestige through the second half of the twentieth century. Their disagreement hinged on the nature of fundamental research. The particle physics community adopted a reductionist approach, arguing that the fundamental physical laws were those governing the smallest constituents of matter and energy. Partly in response to this position, solid state physicists developed a range of more permissive perspectives on what type of physics could be fundamental, all of which stressed the importance of higher-level characteristics, maintaining that investigations at many levels of complexity might yield fundamental insight. This paper traces the dispute over fundamentality, which grew both from the specific problems physicists encountered while building their professional infrastructure, and from the demands of funding their research in Cold War America. Through an exploration of how physicists developed philosophical positions within institutional contexts and deployed those positions in their rhetoric, I argue first that professional pressures both motivated and exerted influence over the construction of such views, second that philosophical views had a reciprocal guiding effect on the institutional and professional development of Cold War physics, and third that these views were further bent, blunted, and reshaped when deployed in high-stakes rhetorical discourse. The case studies through which this story unfolds indicate that further attention to such philosophical commitments is warranted when examining the historical development of scientific institutions, communities, and hierarchies.