化学中的自然种类浅析  

Natural Kinds in Chemistry

作　　者：余朋 郭贵春[1] YU Peng;GUO Gui-chun(Research Center for Philosophy of Science and Technology,Shanxi University,Taiyuan 030006,China)

机构地区：[1]山西大学科学技术哲学研究中心,太原030006

出　　处：《自然辩证法研究》2024年第11期59-64,共6页Studies in Dialectics of Nature

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大项目“爱思唯尔《科学哲学手册》翻译与研究”(18ZDA030)。

摘　　要：目前学界对于化学种类是否为自然种类仍然存在争议,这一争议主要体现在微观结构本质主义和反微观结构本质主义的辩论中。其中,微观结构本质主义的代表之一埃利斯(Brian Ellis)构建了以自然种类概念为中心的形而上学分类,认为化学元素(元素周期表)代表着自然种类的绝佳范例。此外,在探讨化学种类是否为自然种类时,最为成熟且与之紧密相关的自然种类本质主义理论以及自然种类因果理论,均倾向于将化学种类视为争议最小的自然种类候选者。然而,鉴于化学分类体系的多样性和复杂性,无论是埃利斯以自然种类概念为中心的形而上学分类,还是自然种类本质主义和自然种类因果理论,都无法有效地说明所有化学种类。The current academic debate regarding whether chemical kinds are natural kinds is prominently manifested in the discourse between Microstructural Essentialism and Anti-microstructural Essentialism.Brian Ellis,one of the proponents of Microstructural Essentialism,has constructed a metaphysical classification centered around the concept of natural kinds,contending that chemical element(Periodic Table of Element)exemplifies an optimal paradigm of natural kinds.Furthermore,when discussing whether chemical kinds are natural kinds,both the well-established Essentialism of natural kinds and the Simple Causal Theory of natural kinds tend to regard chemical kinds as the least controversial candidates for natural kinds.However,given the diversity and complexity of chemical cases and their classification systems,both Ellis's metaphysical classification centered around the concept of natural kinds and the Essentialism and the Simple Causal Theory of natural kinds fail to effectively account for all chemical kinds.

关 键 词：自然种类 化学种类 化学分类 化学哲学 

分 类 号：N031[自然科学总论—科学技术哲学]