社会科学解释的规范性问题——从劳斯与特纳的争论谈起  

The Problem of Normativity in Social Scientific Explanations:a Debate Between Rouse and Turner

作　　者：高音笛 吴彤[1] GAO Yin-di;WU Tong(Department of the History of Science,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)

机构地区：[1]清华大学科学史系,北京100084

出　　处：《自然辩证法研究》2025年第1期47-53,共7页Studies in Dialectics of Nature

基　　金：国家社会科学基金青年项目“智能时代的具身性科学实践研究”(22CZX024);2023年中央级公益性科研院所基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目“医学现代性与科学动力学问题研究”(YZX202314)。

摘　　要：解释的规范主义主张规范解释同时具有解释的和规范的作用,规范作用的有效性意味着真正的规范性。针对这一观点,特纳认为,规范解释总是与社会科学解释一起出现,没有必要在解释的有效性中给规范性一个特殊的位置。劳斯认为,规范性解释确实具有双重作用,但科学理解的规范性来自主体间的相互问责。劳斯的自然主义且非特纳化的解释作为一种实践描述,其有效性并非不证自明,仍然具有争议。The theories of explanatory normativism assert that normative explanations have both explanatory and normative roles.The validity of normative explanatory role means genuine normativity.Turner argues that normative explanations always appear in conjunction with social scientific explanations.It is unnecessary to give normativity a special position in explanatory validity.While Rouse holds that normative interpretation does have a dual role and normativity of scientific understanding comes from mutual accountability of agents.As a kind of practical description,the effectiveness of Rouse's naturalistic and non-Turnerized explanations is not self-evident,which is still controversial.

关 键 词：社会科学解释 规范解释 规范性 自然主义 实践描述 

分 类 号：N031[自然科学总论—科学技术哲学]