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（部分不可解释的）理论之间的历史过渡，特别关注这种过渡对科学概念，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科学理论所依据的中心范畴和概念。Chen和Barker 2000，Chen 2003）。将进行几个案例研究，这些案例来自17世纪化学发展和FOR 600功能2概念和框架-世纪2008年提案（例如，燃素与氧燃烧理论的比较），以及生物学发展（从林奈到达尔文分类系统）。我们将研究一个属性成为科学分类系统中的中心维度（或节点）所必须满足的历史和认识论条件，例如摩尔数在阿伏伽德罗和道尔顿之后成为化学物质和反应分类的中心，或者后代在达尔文之后成为生物种类分类的中心。三个相关的目标是这个项目的核心。第一个目标集中在这样一个问题上，即如何比较相互竞争的（在某些情况下是不可竞争的）理论或研究方案？我们猜想，框架表征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不变性，正如结构现实主义者所称的那样，它揭示了关于世界的客观信息（Worrall 1989，Votsis 2005，Schurz 2006 b）。第二个目标将集中在理论框架的哪些概念或节点可以被视为成功地指涉世界上的实体，而不仅仅是具有工具价值的问题。我们推测，通常我们可以成功地识别出一个框架的引用节点时，至少有一部分内容幸存下来的理论变化的形式结构的对应关系的框架之间的连续的理论。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，以及（B）其诊断效率。我们要问的是，是否存在理论统一的目标和诊断效率的目标发生冲突的情况。例如，在根据属性相似性对生物种类进行的分类和根据它们的进化祖先进行的分类之间，似乎存在着某种紧张关系（参见《生物进化论》）。Ridley 1993，358 f，369 f）。如果存在冲突，我们将努力制定解决冲突的战略。

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.