论文部分内容阅读
作者在本文中企图说明一般规律在历史上具有其在自然科学中的相似作用;是历史研究不可缺少的一种工具;甚至构成研究社会科学的各种方法的共同基础。在本文中,所谓一般规律,被理解为一种普遍的条件形式陈述,可以用适当的经验发现去证实或否定。作者认为,任何具有科学性的解释,必须经得起客观核对,包括(a)一种对于陈述决定条件语句的经验检查;(b)一种对于作为陈述基础的普遍假设的经验检查;(c)一种对于解释是否逻辑上可靠的审查。并认为,科学的预断的逻辑结构与科学解释的结构完全相同。特别是在整个经验科学中,预断正同解释一样地要涉及对于普遍的经验假设的参证。作者最后指出:第一,把经验科学上的“纯粹叙说”和“假设上的概括与理论上的建立“分别开来,是不许可的;在建立科学的知识方面,两者是不可分割地相联系着。第二,同样不能许可并且无益的,就是企图在科学研究的不同领域之间划下鲜明的界线,而且要使各领域中每一个都去自主地发展。
In this article, the author attempts to show that the general law has its similar role historically in the natural sciences; it is an indispensable instrument of historical research; and it even forms the common basis for various methods of studying social science. In this article, the so-called general rule is understood as a general statement of conditionality that can be verified or denied using the appropriate empirical findings. The author argues that any scientific explanation must be able to stand up to objective checks, including (a) an empirical examination of a statement of a statement of conditions of decision; (b) an empirical examination of the general assumption underlying the statement; (c A censorship of whether logic is reliable. And that the logic of scientific pre-cut structure and scientific explanation exactly the same structure. In particular, throughout empirical science, preconditions are as much about interpreting the reference to common empirical assumptions. Finally, the author points out: First, it is not allowed to separate the “pure narrative” of empirical science from the “establishment of the hypothesis and the establishment of the theory.” In establishing scientific knowledge, the two are indivisible Linked. Second, what is equally inadmissible and unhelpful is the attempt to draw a clear line between the different areas of scientific research and to allow autonomous development in each of these areas.