观察句产生于感觉接受器的激发,但即使在相同刺激之下,由于对土著说话者发音、取向等理解上的差异,以及翻译过程中移情运用方式上的不同,相同的观察句可以被不同的译者翻译为不同的句子。翻译的不确定性论题大体隶属语言哲学的范畴。观察句翻译中的不确定性,自然会引起包含于其中的词项指称不可测知,进而不同的翻译手册可以为同一语词指派不同的指称。不过,指称的不可测知性论题属于本体论范畴,为实用目的人们可以选定不同的本体论理论框架,其中相似刺激的具体化完全可以形成不同对象的指称,从而造成不同本体论中同一语词的指称不可测知,这一点可为代理函项充分说明。科学理论的不充分决定性则又是另一话题,它属于知识论的领域。科学理论是被经验内容不充分决定的,不同的科学理论即便是逻辑不相容的,也完全可以是经验等价的。论据是科学理论蕴涵着众多观察断言句,后者的失败并没有决定科学理论的唯一修正,科学家可以选取蕴涵该观察断言句的合取式中的任一信念予以消除或修正;当然在运用这一整体论策略的时候,尚需坚持最大限度的简单性和最小限度的肢解整体两条实用主义准则。上述论据说明,科学理论是作为整体面向经验的,或者说只有作为整体的科学理论才具有经验意义,因此,具有相同经验内容的科学理论可以有不同的理论表述,在这个意义上科学理论是(为经验内容)不充分决定的。 The observation sentence is generated by the sensory receptors. However, even under the same stimulus, the same observation sentence can be used due to differences in the understanding of the native speakers’ pronunciation, orientation, etc., and the different ways of empathetic use in the translation process Different translators translate to different sentences. The translation of the uncertainty of the topic generally under the category of language philosophy. The uncertainties in the translation of the observation sentences naturally lead to the unpredictableness of the terms contained in them and thus different translation manuals can assign different allegations to the same term. However, the theory of alleged inaccuracies belongs to the category of ontology. For practical purpose, people can choose different theoretical frameworks of ontology, in which the concretization of similar stimuli can form allegations of different objects altogether, resulting in the same terms in different ontologies The allegation is not detectable, and this can be fully explained by the agency letter. Insufficient decisiveness of scientific theory is another topic, which belongs to the field of epistemology. Scientific theories are not adequately determined by empirical content. Different scientific theories, even if they are logically incompatible, can also be empirically equivalent. The argument is that scientific theories contain a large number of observation assertions. The failure of the latter does not determine the only amendment of scientific theory. Scientists can choose any belief in the conjunctive formula that implies the observation of affirmative sentences to eliminate or correct them. Of course, At the time of a holistic strategy, we still need to uphold the principle of maximum simplicity and minimum dismemberment of the two pragmatic norms as a whole. The argument above shows that scientific theories are experienced empirically as a whole or only as a whole, and that scientific theories with the same empirical content can have different theoretical representations in the sense that scientific theories are ( For the experience of content) is not fully decided.