排序方式： 共有7条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
Paul Ernest 《Interchange》2000,31(2-3):225-241
In Principia Mathematica Whitehead and Russell erected one of the cornerstones of modernist philosophy of mathematics. However, as an epistemological project seeking to secure the foundations of mathematics, this attempt failed, as Whitehead acknowledged. His later work in process philosophy represented a new direction. Although not explicitly a philosophy of mathematics, it provides a suggested metaphor for philosophy of mathematics. This paper explores the possible implications of organismic and process philosophy, both for the philosophy of mathematics, and for mathematics education and teaching. 相似文献
2.
葛欢欢 《常熟理工学院学报》2013,(1):36-42
普特南强调在后期维特根斯坦甚至康德的思想中发现了与实用主义相似的因素:既强调可错论又反对怀疑主义。它们从不同的方面影响了普特南对实在论的构想。其中康德的影响集中于内在实在论中世界依赖于心灵对它的表征的观点,后期维特根斯坦的影响在于普特南长久以来对功能和用法的重视,而经典实用主义直接启发普特南用多元主义与一种朴素的直观对抗形而上学实在论与反实在论。 相似文献
3.
张晓贵 《科学技术与辩证法》2011,(5):48-51
数学易缪性是对传统数学真理观的挑战。皮尔士和拉卡托斯虽然都提出了数学的易缪性,但二者对于数学易缪性的理解并不一致。文章从三个方面即数学易缪性的提出、数学易缪性的根据和对数学易缪性的信心介绍了皮尔士和拉卡托斯的数学易缪性,在此基础上对二者的数学易缪性进行了比较。 相似文献
4.
Anniina Leiviskä 《Educational Philosophy and Theory》2013,45(5):516-530
The philosophy of science has witnessed continuous controversy since the mid-twentieth century regarding the justification of science’s privileged position, and which has also reverberated in the philosophy of science education. This contribution brings to the discussion the viewpoint of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics. I suggest that by relating to the idea of the fallibility of knowledge, Gadamerian philosophy provides a compromise between the extreme positions in the aforementioned debate. Gadamerian hermeneutics also has implications for science education: from the Gadamerian perspective, science education should (1) induce experiences of negation that familiarize learners with their own pre-understanding and (2) introduce learners to the fallibility of knowledge. Finally, I argue that both instances (1) and (2) aim to cultivate non-dogmatism in learners. 相似文献
5.
曹剑波 《北京师范大学学报(社会科学版)》2010,(2):78-85
绝对不可错论和可错论是西方知识论中的两种主要的理论。绝对不可错论主张,知识是不可错的;可错论主张,知识是可错的。绝对不可错论必然导致否认人们有知识的全面的怀疑论。为了拯救知识,避免怀疑论,反怀疑论者倡导可错论,主张用可错论来批驳怀疑论。虽然可错论可以避免怀疑论,但笔者认为拯救知识论的最佳策略不是可错论,而是语境不可错论,语境不可错论是知识论的真正出路。 相似文献
6.
Polycarp Ikuenobe 《Interchange》2002,33(4):371-393
I argue for a view of critical thinking and learning as a fallibilistic epistemic process of inquiry and evaluation, which is grounded in human fallibility. I show how this plausible view is different from other views, in that it is predicated not only on individual thinking alone but also on group thinking as it affects the individual in the context of a group discussion. The individualistic rational view of critical thinking only specifies the process or method that one may individually use to evaluate beliefs or the evidence that one brings to bear on one's doxastic attitude or judgment. This view does not specify the nature and scope of evidence that one may need to evaluate. I argue that evaluating a belief in the context of having a substantial amount of available evidence in a social group is important for determining whether one thinks critically. There is epistemic advantage in evaluating a broad scope of available evidence in a group discussion, which does not exist otherwise. I assume that group discussion is a pedagogical tool, which under the right social conditions, is likely to bring about learning and the acquisition of critical thinking abilities. The right social conditions for group discussion can optimize reasonableness by a process which involves cognitive division of labor and epistemic prudence. An individual can evaluate on his or her own only a limited amount of evidence; sometimes we may need to rely on the evidence that others have already evaluated which they may reasonably accept, given their cognitive comparative advantage. I distinguish among three plausible learning outcomes of the process of critical thinking, which indicate cognitive division of labor and comparative epistemic advantage in a group discussion. 相似文献
7.
颜中军 《科学技术与辩证法》2014,(3):22-26
著名的实用主义哲学家兼逻辑学家蒯因、普特南和哈克基于各自的认识论与形而上学立场都曾明确主张逻辑可修正。蒯因的逻辑可修正论根植于他的整体主义知识观,而普特南的逻辑可修正论与其实在论立场密不可分。哈克在批判地吸收蒯因、普特南逻辑实用主义的基础上,进一步发挥了以皮尔士为代表的古典实用主义,主张更加彻底的知识可错论和激进的逻辑可修正论。尽管蒯因、普特南以及哈克的逻辑可修正论均存在这样或那样的不足,但逻辑可修正性仍然是一个严肃的哲学问题,值得深入思考。 相似文献
1