您现在的位置:首页  所务通知

台湾中正大學侯維之教授訪問講座

作者:文章来源:现代逻辑与逻辑应用研究所点击数:10更新时间:2017-12-07

  

1、 學術講座:歷史思想實驗:回溯式分析與單一歷史歸因   

    時間:20171211 (週一)1830-2030 

    地點:哲學系樓(薛光林樓)314会议  

2互動式演講:如何思考證立(justification的規範性:以封閉性原則為例  

    時間:20171212 (週二)1830-2100  

    地點:哲學系樓(薛光林樓)216  

  

主持人:張建軍教授(南京大學哲學系/邏輯所)  

  

歡迎師生參與!  

  

演講人簡介  

侯維之教授先後就讀于臺灣大學、政治大學和澳大利亞悉尼大學,獲哲學博士學位;先後任教於華梵大學和中正大學。近期研究重點為後設知識論議題,主要是思想實驗的知識論與assertion/belief的知態規範性(epistemic normativity)。目前撰寫的論文包括歷史思想實驗、懷疑論的思想實驗、對assertion真理規範性的批評等。研究成果發表於《歐美研究》、Philosophia Philosophical Forum 等期刊。  

   

學術講座摘要:    

歷史的工作之一,是在重要歷史事件之間建立單一歷史歸因,一種個例因果關係(token causation)。譬如,西元二千年佛羅裏達州令人困惑的蝴蝶選票(butterfly ballot),與Gore痛失總統寶座的爭議。不過因為過去是固定不變,為了研究這種歷史事件間的關係,無可避免要在知態上(epistemic)訴諸反事實思慮。其中一個想法來自Max Weber,即所謂的Weber causationf was a cause of j” is assertable iff “¬f *→ ¬j” is assertable。針對這個主題,Reiss2009)給予非常好的分析,並簡述了歷史學家的推論方式。他認為單一歷史歸因的研究的特徵,正是在歷史思想實驗(historical thought experiments)中利用對反事實條件句(counterfactual conditionals)的回溯式分析(backtracking analyses)。儘管如此,Reiss的結論卻是在多數的案例中,難以找到令人滿意的歸因。爰此,他提議去尋找差異形成關係(difference-making relations)就足矣。本文的目標是針對反事實條件句的回溯式分析,提供一個更為細緻的理論,一個以幹預(intervention)為基礎的回溯分析,並基於此建立一個更令人滿意的單一歷史歸因的說明。Reiss的差異形成關係的理論亦將被顯示其不足。再者,歷史思想實驗知識論的形式基礎可進一步建立,同時說明反事實條件的非傳遞性(non-transitivity)與強中心性(strong centring)的語意特性,如何限制這個理論。此外,關於單一歷史歸因與歷史思想實驗的某些知識論觀點,亦將被提出。最後,回溯式分析不僅針對重要歷史事件的歸因,而且可以應用到日常生活,不論是關於個人或機構的個例因果關係,前述理論皆可提供協助。  

關鍵字:回溯式分析、歷史思想實驗、幹預、單一歷史事件歸因、Weber因果關係  

   

Backtracking analysis and causal ascription of singular historicals  

   

Abstract  

One task of historians is to find singular historical causal ascriptions between eminent historical events. For instance, the controversy resulting from the confusing butterfly ballot of Florida ’s year 2000 presidential election cost Gore his presidency. However, to research into these matters is inevitably to appeal to counterfactual deliberation in an epistemic fashion because the past is fixed. One standard idea is Max Weber’s, Weber causation: “f was a cause of j” is assertable iff “¬f *→ ¬j” is assertable. Reiss (2009) gives an exceptionally good analysis of this topic and outlines historians’ reasoning, claiming that backtracking analyses of counterfactual conditionals employed in historical thought experiments is the signature of historical study of singular historical causal ascriptions. Nevertheless, he concludes that it is very difficult to reach an uncontroversial ascription for this sort in most cases. For this reason, he proposes to find difference-making relations that will suffice. The objective of this paper is to provide a more fine-grained, an intervention-based, backtracking analysis of counterfactual conditionals upon which a more satisfactory account of singular historical causal ascription can be constructed. Reiss’ account of difference-making relation will be shown to be unsatisfactory accordingly. Moreover, a formal ground of the epistemology of historical thought experiments can be given, along with the constraints of this account resultant from the semantic features of non-transitivity and strong centring of counterfactual conditionals. Furthermore, some epistemological points of singular historical causal ascription and historical thought experiments will be given. Finally, backtracking analysis does not just work for singular historical causal ascriptions but also for daily life events. No matter it is about personal or institutional, for instance, events, the above theory is able to provide its service.  

   

Key words: backtracking counterfactual analysis, historical thought experiment, intervention, singular historical causal ascription, Weber causation  

  

互動式演講摘要:    

證立性(justifiedness)必須具備規範性,倘若並非如此,眼見為憑亦不足以讓人相信,這是第一個需要說明的議題。在初步介紹規範性之後,將參考張智皓與蕭銘源的論文:〈論Smith「證成的常態性理論」之內在不一致性〉,先說明何謂樂透悖論(the lottery paradox),再以Smith的常態性證成理論(the normic theory of justification)作為例子,說明其如何利用此悖論來支持證成(或證立性)的封閉性原則(the closure principle)。接著再介紹他們的論文對Smith的理論的批評,他們主張弱規範性(permissibility)不具聚合性(agglomeration),但封閉性原則具備聚合性,而Smith的理論同時包括弱規範性與證立的封閉性原則,因此導致不一致。進行了前兩部分的說明之後,將仔細分析他們的論證,說明他們論證不成立的數個理由。最後再利用同一案例的幾種變化,進一步解釋反駁證立性的規範性的限制與困難。