ناسازگاری در علم؛ استدلالی له امکانِ فلسفه علم فراسازگار

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی اصیل

نویسنده
کسری فارسیان
گروه حکمت، فلسفه و منطق، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
10.58209/jpt.2.3.269
چکیده
برای فیلسوفان علم مهمی نظیر پوپر، همپل و تارسکی، سازگاری شرط لازم تاسیس یک نظریه علمی است. آنها معتقدند که یک نظریه علمی ناسازگار، غیراطلاع‌بخش، بی‌معنی یا ناکارآمد است. در این مقاله من در ابتدا نشان می‌دهم که ادعای این فیلسوفان نادرست است، سپس با پرداختن به برخی از ناسازگاری‌های موجود در نظریات مهم علمی (اعم از علوم تجربی و غیرتجربی)، راه را برای سخن گفتن از امکان فلسفه علم فراسازگار باز خواهم کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

  1. - Aristotle, (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press, vols 1 and 2.
    - Davey, K. (2014). Can good science be logically inconsistent?. Synthese 191, 3009–3026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-014-0470-x.
    - Farsian K, Hodjati S. (2021). Graham Priest on Reconstruction of Hegel’s Logic and Metaphysics in Modern Logic. jpt. 2021; 1 (1) :61-77. URL: http://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article-34-45297-fa.html.[Persian]
    - Farsian, K. (2020). Reconstruction of Hegel's Logic through the Modern Logic: Paraconsistency or Trivialism?. Logical Studies, 11(2), 173-188. doi: 10.30465/lsj.2021.35739.1338.[Persian]
    - Hempel, C., Jeffrey, R. (2000). Selected philosophical essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    - Mortensen, C. (2017).Inconsistent Mathematics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/>.
    - Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.
    - Priest, G. (1998). What is so Bad about Contradictions? The Journal of Philosophy, 95(8), 410–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/2564636
    - Priest, G. (2002). Inconsistency and the Empirical Sciences. In: Meheus, J. (eds) Inconsistency in Science. Origins, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0085-6_7.
    - Priest, G., Routley, R. (1984). Introduction: Paraconsistent logics. Studia Logica 43, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00935736.
    - Tarski, A. (1994). Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.
  2. Aristotle (1984). The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Link]
  3. Brady RT (1971). The consistency of the axioms of abstraction and extensionality in a three-valued logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. 12(4):447-453. [Link] [DOI:10.1305/ndjfl/1093894366]
  4. Brady RT (1989). The nontriviality of dialectical set theory. In: Priest G, Routley R, Norman J, editors. Paraconsistent Logic: Essays on the Inconsistent. Munich: Philosophia Verlag. pp. 437-470. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/j.ctv2x8v8c7.19]
  5. Brady R (2006). Universal Logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications. [Link]
  6. da Costa NCA (1974). On the theory of inconsistent formal systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic. 15(4):497-510. [Link] [DOI:10.1305/ndjfl/1093891487]
  7. Davey K (2014). Can good science be logically inconsistent?. Synthese. 191(13):3009-3026. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11229-014-0470-x]
  8. Farsian K, Hodjati S. (2021). Graham Priest on reconstruction of Hegel's logic and metaphysics in modern logic. Journal o Philosophical Thought. 1(1):61-77. [Persian] [Link]
  9. Farsian K (2020). Reconstruction of Hegel's logic through the modern logic: Paraconsistency or trivialism?. Logical Studies. 11(2):173-188. [Persian] [Link]
  10. Hempel C, Jeffrey R (2000). Selected philosophical essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Link] [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511815157]
  11. Mortensen C (1995). Inconsistent mathematics. Dordrecht: Springer. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-94-015-8453-1]
  12. Mortensen C (2017). Inconsistent mathematics (August 18, 2017). In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/ [Link]
  13. Popper K (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge. [Link]
  14. Priest G (1998). What is so bad about contradictions?. The Journal of Philosophy. 95(8):410-426. [Link] [DOI:10.2307/2564636]
  15. Priest G (2002). Inconsistency and the empirical sciences. In: Meheus J, editor. Inconsistency in science (Volume 2). Dordrecht: Springer. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-0085-6_7]
  16. Priest G, Routley R (1984). Introduction: Paraconsistent logics. Studia Logica. 43:3-16. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/BF00935736]
  17. Tarski A (1994). Introduction to logic and to the methodology of the deductive sciences. New York: Oxford University Press. [Link]