A frame-theoretic investigation of the dynamics of scientific theories, their conceptual systems and their realistic reference

在这个项目中，框架理论将被用来研究(部分不可公度的)理论之间的历史转变，并特别关注这种转变对科学概念、分类系统和本体论的影响。框架特别适合于这一目的，因为它们以递归属性系统的形式阐明了支撑科学理论的中心范畴和概念(参见。Chen和Barker 2000，Chen 2003)。将从17世纪化学的发展和600个功能2的概念和框架--建议2008-18世纪(例如，燃素与燃烧的氧气理论的比较)和生物学的发展(从Linnean到达尔文的分类系统)进行几个案例研究。我们将调查历史和认识论条件，以使一个属性成为科学分类系统−中的中心维度(或节点)，例如，在阿伏伽德罗和道尔顿之后，摩尔数成为化学物质和反应的中心，或者在达尔文之后，后代成为生物种类分类的中心。三个相关目标是该项目的核心。第一个目标集中在如何比较相互竞争的(在某些情况下是不可比较的)理论或研究项目的问题上。我们推测，框架表示特别适合于揭示不同理论之间的结构对应关系。这种关系可以被解释为结构现实主义者所称的不变性，它们揭示了关于世界的客观信息(Worrall 1989，Votsis 2005，Schurz 2006b)。第二个目标将侧重于这样一个问题，即理论框架的哪些概念或节点可以被认为成功地涉及世界上的实体，而不仅仅是具有工具价值。我们推测，通常情况下，当框架的至少一部分内容以连续理论的框架之间的结构对应关系的形式变化时，我们可以成功地识别框架的引用节点。该项目的第三个目标涉及制定科学分类的评价标准。两个评价维度将限制讨论：(A)分类框架提供的理论统一程度，(B)其诊断效率。问题是，是否存在理论统一的目标和诊断效率的目标相冲突的情况。例如，这种类型的紧张似乎存在于生物种类的分类之间，从属性相似性的角度来看，以及就它们的进化祖先而言(参见。Ridley 1993,358f，369f)。在存在冲突的地方，我们将努力制定解决它们的战略。

In this project, frame-theory shall be used to investigate the historical transition between (partially incommensurable) theories, with particular focus on the consequences such transitions have on scientific concepts, classificatory systems and ontologies. Frames are especially suited for this purpose because they explicate the central categories and concepts which underlie scientific theories in the form of recursive system of attributes (cf. Chen and Barker 2000, Chen 2003). Several case studies from the development of chemistry in the 17th and FOR 600 Functional 2 Concepts and Frames – Proposal 2008 18th century (for example, the comparison of phlogiston versus oxygen theories of combustion), and from the development of biology (from Linnean to Darwinian classification systems) shall be conducted. We will investigate the historical and epistemological conditions which must be satisfied in order for an attribute to become a central dimension (or node) in a scientific classification system − such as mole number becoming central in the classification of chemical substances and reactions after Avogadro and Dalton, or descendance become central in classification of biological kinds after Darwin. Three related goals are central to this the project. The first goal concentrates on the question of how can competing (and in some cases incommensurable) theories or research programs be compared? We conjecture that frame-representations are especially suited to reveal structural correspondence relations between different theories. Such relations can be construed as invariances, as the structural realists call them, that disclose objective information about the world (Worrall 1989, Votsis 2005, Schurz 2006b). The second goal will focus on the question of which concepts or nodes of a theory frame can be regarded to successfully refer to entities in the world as opposed to merely having an instrumental value. We conjecture that typically we can identify successfully referring nodes of a frame when at least part of their content survived theory change in the form of structural correspondence relations between the frames of the consecutive theories. The third goal in this project concerns the development of evaluation criteria for scientific classification. Two evaluation dimensions will circumscribe the discussion: (a) the degree of theoretical unification provided by a classification frame, and (b) its diagnostic efficiency. It will be asked whether there are cases in which the aim of theoretical unification and the aim of diagnostic efficiency come into conflict. For example, certain tensions of this sort seem to exist between a classification of biological kinds in terms of attributive similarities, and in terms of their evolutionary ancestry (cf. Ridley 1993, 358f, 369f). Where conflicts exist, we will try to develop strategies to resolve them.