[강의계획서] 과학철학연구: 공약불가능성 및 관련된 문제들 (2015년 2학기, 조인래)

- 수업명: <과학철학연구: 공약불가능성 및 관련된 문제들>

- 2015년 2학기

- 서울대 철학과 대학원

- 담당교수: 조인래

■ 개요

1960년대에 토머스 쿤(Thomas Kuhn)과 폴 파이어아벤트(Paul Feyerabend)가 제안한 공약불가능성 논제(Incommensurability Thesis), 즉 “경쟁 과학이론들은 공약불가능하다”는 주장은 현대 과학철학의 최대 쟁점 중 하나로 자리잡으면서 많은 논란의 대상이 되어왔다. 우리는 공약불가능성 논제의 실체와 주요 찬반 논변들을 면밀히 검토하면서 그것이 관련된 과학철학의 주요 사안들, 즉 이론 비교의 형태와 조건, 이론 선택의 합리성, 실재론, 상대주의 등에 대해 갖는 정확한 함의를 규명하고 이를 비판적으로 평가하는 과정을 통해 각자의 입장을 모색하는 시도를 할 것이다.

■ 세부 주제

1. What is incommensurability?: Kuhn and Feyerabend 

2. Taxonomic Incommensurability & Untranslatability 

3. Comparability and its Conditions 

4. Rationality & Relativism 

5. Anti-Realism? 

6. Incommensurability from cognitive points of view

■ 수업 일정

09/02 - 수업 개요

09/09

(1) Feyerabend, P. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction & Empiricism”, Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science III, pp. 28-97.

(2a) Feyerabend, P. (1975/1993), Against Method, 16장(164-208)

​

09/16

(2b) Oberheim, E. (2005), “On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: P. Feyerabend’s Assault on Conceptual Conservativism”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36: 363-390.

(3) Kuhn, T. (1962/2012), SSR, Ch. 9(pp. 91-109), 10(pp. 110-134), 12(pp. 144-159)

(4a) Kuhn, T. (1983), “Commensurability, comparability, Communicability”, in PSA 1982, Vol. 2, 669-688. 조인래(1997), 『쿤의 주제들』, pp. 225-255.

09/30

(4b) Hoyningen, P. (1993), Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions. Particularly, Ch. 6.3. pp. 206-222.

(5a) Sankey, H. (1993), “Kuhn’s Changing Concept of Incommensurability”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 44: 759-774.

(5b) Sankey, H. (1997), “Taxonomic Incommensurability”, in H. Sankey (1997), Rationality, Relativism and Incommensurability, pp. 66-80.

10/07 - 비평 발표 및 토론 (I)

10/14

(5c) Sankey, H. (1997), “In defence of untranslatability”, in H. Sankey (1997), pp. 83-109.

(6a) Sankey, H. (1994), The Incommensurability Thesis, Ch. 5 “Referential Discontinuity”, pp. 138-178.

10/21

(6b) Kuhn, T. (1990), “Dubbing and Redubbing”, in W. Savage (ed.) (1990), Scientific Theories, pp. 298-318.

(7) Bird (2000), Thomas Kuhn, “Incommensurability and Meaning”, 149-208.

10/28

(8) Carrier, M. (2001), “Changing Laws and Shifting Concepts: On the Nature and Impact of Incommensurability”, in P. Hoyningen-Huene and H. Sankey (ed.), Incommensurability rand Related Matters, Dordrecth: Kluwer, pp. 65-90.

(9a) Kuhn, T. (1983), “Rationality and Theory Choice”, Journal of Philosophy 80: 563-570.

(9b) Friedman, M. (2001), “Rationality, Revolution and the Community of Inquiry”, in M. Friedman (2001), Dynamics of Reason, pp. 47-68.

11/04 - 비평 발표 및 토론 (II)

11/18

• Oberheim, E and Hoyningen, P. (1997), “Incommensurability, Realism and Meta-Incommensurability”, Theoria 12(3): 447-465.

• Devitt, M. (2001), “Incommensurability and the priority of metaphysics”, in Hoyningen-Huene and H. Sankey (eds.), Incommensurability and Related Matters (Kluwer Academic Publishers), pp 143-157.

• Sankey (2009), “Scientific Realism and the semantic incommensurability thesis”, Studies In History and Philosophy of Science 40(2): 196-202.

11/25

• Barker, P., X. Chen, and H. Andersen (2003), “Kuhn on Concepts and Categorization,” in T. Nickles (ed.), Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press, 212-45.

• Bird, A. (2002), “Kuhn’s wrong turning”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A 33(3): 443-463.

(2020.03.26.)