方法论整体主义的不同解释旨趣论证  

The Argument from Differing Explanatory Interests to Methodological Holism

作　　者：韩东奥 张志林[1] HAN Dong-ao;ZHANG Zhi-lin(School of Philosophy,Fudan University,Shanghai 200433,China)

机构地区：[1]复旦大学哲学学院,上海200433

出　　处：《自然辩证法研究》2022年第8期3-9,共7页Studies in Dialectics of Nature

摘　　要：在社会科学哲学的讨论中解释旨趣论证是为方法论整体主义辩护的策略之一。布韦尔等人认可从解释旨趣出发的讨论方式,但认为该论证忽视了实用主义的考虑。对这一观点的反驳在于,尽管我们在解释实践中无法忽略实用因素,同样也不应赋予实用因素过高的权重。在这个意义上布韦尔等人错误地估计了解释旨趣在解释中的作用,忽略了解释旨趣、对比问题和解释实践之间的关系。在这一过程中真正对解释起到实质影响的并非是解释旨趣,而是对比问题的选择及回答。因此,通过对对比问题的讨论将有助于我们改进不同解释旨趣论证,从而更好地回应批评并为方法论整体主义提供辩护。For discussions in philosophy of social science, The Argument from Differing Explanatory Interest is one of the strategies to defend methodological holism. Many philosophers, such as Bouwel criticized that the argument ignored the consideration of pragmatism. The response to this view is that although we can not ignore practical factors in explanation, we should not give too much weight to practical factors. In this sense, Bouwel mistakenly estimated the role of explanatory interests, ignoring the relationship explanatory interest, contrast question, and explanation. In this process, what really affects the interpretation is not explanatory interests, but the choice and answer of contrast questions. This paper will demonstrate that the discussion of “contrast question” will help us improve the argument of different explanatory interests, better respond to criticism, and provide a defense for methodological holism.

关 键 词：方法论整体主义 解释 解释旨趣 对比问题 

分 类 号：C02[社会学]