论技术的本质特征

论技术的本质特征刘文海以往对技术本质的认识,从学科方法上看,大致可分为以下六类：第一类是形而上学或认识论方法论意义上的,即从哲学的维度看技术;第二类是社会学意义上的,即把７Ｏ技术看作一种人类活动;第三类是人类学意义上的,即把技术看作一种人类活动;第四...     

科学与世界

伽利略确信地球在运动。这种运动观是哥白尼关于宇宙构成和天体运动的理论的推论。C.贝拉明(Cardinal Bellarmine)作为教会的权威代表人物,负责日历以及各种宗教节日日期的计算,他迫切希望能采用一种天体运动的模型,以便使这种预测比当时所使用的托勒密体系更简明和更精确。哥白尼体系至少在当时看来是一个改进。但是正象在此之前的托勒密体系一样,它也不过是一种方法,一种由天文学家发明的数学模型,可用来描绘进而预言所观测到的天体相对位置的顺序。正是由于伽利略坚持把天体模型看成是描绘天体的实际运动     

艺术与技术、科学与美学

美学和科学都是满足人认识世界的需要而产生的,美学强调入的自我认识,科学更强调客观规律的揭示。先进的技术应该也必须应用,但有了技术不能不要艺术。若纯技术性的作品,而无思想,那么机器也可以成为艺术家。艺术是可以唤醒人们对现存的认识。     

科学不迷信与迷信不科学--议"科学的迷信与迷信的科学"

看了由《中国科学院》主办, 《中国工程院》、《国家自然科学基金委员会》共办的《科学时报》在今年8月8日发表的“科普新见”栏目中田松所写的文章——《科学的迷信与迷信的科学》 (下称     

马克思哲学思想的本质特征:技术实践论

技术实践是物质的、现实的、人类整体的实践活动。它也是人类实践活动的基本形式,关涉人的本质存在。技术实践论是马克思在批判西方传统哲学思想,尤其是黑格尔和费尔巴哈哲学的基础上,对社会存在的历史和现实进行唯物和辩证思考后形成的科学理论。技术实践论是马克思哲学思想的核心所在,同时也是其本质特征。     

科学精神与"杞人忧天"

本文重新审视了杞人忧天这一成语,探讨了在东西方文化的背景下,杞人忧天与自然科学的关系.中国传统对杞人忧天的否定态度,是中国古代缺乏科学精神,近代自然科学难以在中国产生的根本原因.从中国的历史和现实出发,为有利于科学技术的发展,我们应该学习和提倡杞人忧天的精神.     

科学、宗教与神学——《基督教世界科学与神学论战史》述评

安德鲁·迪克森·怀特是美国19世纪末著名学者,他的《基督教世界科学与神学论战史》是最早系统地从历史的角度探讨科学与宗教和神学之间的关系的著作之一。怀特强调真正的基督教精神不同于教条主义的神学,与科学有冲突的是神学而不是宗教。科学与宗教都是对人类有益的事业,而教条主义的神学不仅对科学而且对宗教都是有害的,清除这种教条主义将有利于这二者的发展。     

复杂性的交互作用——科学、技术、社会与伦理

本文立足于复杂性思想,将科学、技术、社会中的复杂性进行了深入的分析.文章引用了各个领域的生动例子,解析其中不同的复杂性含义,最终将研究立足于复杂性伦理,文章进而从本体论、认识论角度对复杂性赖以生成的场景进行了分析.     

"跨学科伦理:经济伦理、科学伦理、技术伦理"国际学术研讨会综述

2007年9月24~25日,由中国社会科学院哲学所、南京大学、德国阿登纳基金会主办,南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心、南京大学哲学系承办的“跨学科伦理:经济伦理、科学伦理、技术伦理”国际学术研讨会在古城南京召开。会上来自中国和德国的50余名专家学者就经济伦理、科学伦理     

以"公天下"大义正"家天下"之法——论中唐《春秋》学的"王道"论述及其时代意义

在中唐至北宋的儒道复兴运动中,追求合理人间秩序的“外王”之学实与“内圣”之学并行而交叉,自中唐兴起而于北宋中叶大盛的《春秋》学颇能凸显这一思潮线索。本文着重阐发中唐《春秋》学倡明“王道”之要旨及其相关论述,指出,中唐《春秋》学抉发西汉公羊学“天下为公”的微言,于大变动的历史时机重新澄清并确立“大一统”皇权专制的政治宪纲；开始探讨在新的历史条件下士人进行政治实践的思想与行为准则即所谓“时中之道”,以树立新的君子人格；又根据“王道”精神提出振兴唐朝、重建中央集权的具体政治纲领,其“尊王”义恰恰构成对唐皇朝强化中央权威的现实政治路线的批判。中唐《春秋》学所开启的这一“原道”之路,在“大一统”秩序重建并巩固的北宋时代得到回应与延续。     

“科技—伦理生态”与“科技—伦理禁区”

在科技伦理学的意义上,"科技有无禁区"不能也不应简单地归之于关于"科技本身"有无禁区的争论.从形上层面来看,"科技禁区"之争之所以产生,在根本上是"关系本位"的伦理学方法和标准科学观的共同宰制以及原有的科技-伦理生态整体失衡的结果.因此,所谓的"科技禁区",并不只是"科技本身"或"伦理本身"的禁区,甚至也不只是科技与伦理之间的"关系"禁区,而是"科技-伦理生态"的禁区."科技有无禁区"之争就其实质而言是科技-伦理生态的"同一性危机","科技禁区"实际上是科技-伦理生态的"同一性禁区".     

The Essential Nature of Sharing in Science

Advances in science are the combined result of the efforts of a great many scientists, and in many cases, their willingness to share the products of their research. These products include data sets, both small and large, and unique research resources not commercially available, such as cell lines and software programs. The sharing of these resources enhances both the scope and the depth of research, while making more efficient use of time and money. However, sharing is not without costs, many of which are borne by the individual who develops the research resource. Sharing, for example, reduces the uniqueness of the resources available to a scientist, potentially influencing the originator’s perceived productivity and ultimately his or her competitiveness for jobs, promotions, and grants. Nevertheless, for most researchers—particularly those using public funds—sharing is no longer optional but must be considered an obligation to science, the funding agency, and ultimately society at large. Most funding agencies, journals, and professional societies now require a researcher who has published work involving a unique resource to make that resource available to other investigators. Changes could be implemented to mitigate some of the costs. The creator of the resource could explore the possibility of collaborating with those who request it. In addition, institutions that employ and fund researchers could change their policies and practices to make sharing a more attractive and viable option. For example, when evaluating an individual’s productivity, institutions could provide credit for the impact a researcher has had on their field through the provision of their unique resources to other investigators, regardless of whether that impact is reflected in the researcher’s list of publications. In addition, increased funding for the development and maintenance of user-friendly public repositories for data and research resources would also help to reduce barriers to sharing by minimizing the time, effort, and funding needed by individual investigators to comply with requests for their unique resource. Indeed, sharing is an imperative, but it is also essential to find ways to protect for both the original owner of the resource and those wishing to share it.     

重建科技哲学——关于科学技术的发生学与哲学研究

20世纪关于科学与技术的哲学思索都有点命途多蹇。逻辑实证主义曾喧嚣一时 ,经蒯因对经验主义的两个教条的批判而走向衰弱。由它衍生出来的科学哲学也受到库恩和戴维森的猛烈冲击 :库恩的历史主义弥合了主观与客观的二元论 ,留下了范式更替这种设想 ;而戴维森把范式与内容的二元对立又打得粉碎。技术哲学诞生于科学主义走下坡路的 2 0世纪 50年代 ,它始终没有达到其峰巅 ,究其原因主要是陷入了宗教末世论与技术末世论的二元对立。埃吉尔学派、海德格尔学派、西方马克思主义学派都是以宗教末世论代替技术末世论 ,除了向人类展示了悲天悯人的…     

"Scientific" Theology/"Theological" Science: Pannenberg and the Dialogue Between Theology and Science

Throughout his distinguished career, Wolfhart Pannenberg has sought to show that the Christian understanding of God is crucial to the pursuit of knowledge. As the essays in Beginning with the End indicate, Pannenberg has attempted to construct a bridge between theology and science via the idea of contingency and the concept of field. His interest in dialogue, however, arises out of a deeper theological foundation, which views theology as a public discipline and sees the human quest for truth as the quest for God. Although susceptible to criticisms that all objectivist approaches at-tract, this focus on "reasonable faith" provides a helpful point of departure for dialogue.     

“科学与宗教”——一个值得关注的研究课题

2006年12月12～13日,中国无神论学会召开了近50人的学术研讨会,主题是“科学与宗教”,有十几位专家学者作了发言,内容涉及了科学与宗教的本质及其相互关系;科学与宗教世界观和认识论、方法论上的对立冲突;科学与宗教关系问题在社会、哲学、历史、文化、教育等方面的影响等等。专家学者或从基本事实,或从理论渊源,或从     

"科技的人性化"辨义

科技的人性化近两年来成了学术界讨论的重要问题,但有关“科技的人性化”的含义却较模糊和混乱。对“科技的人性化”进行了概念上的疏理,“科技的人性化”有三层含义：复归科技固有的人性、限定科技的非人性属性的范围、赋予科技以人性关怀。理清“科技的人性化”,将有助于为科技异化的消除寻求到具体途径,有利于科技的健康发展。     

"Demographic Futures for Christianity and the World Religions"

Abstract :  Since before 1970 Christian researchers have been tracking the massive demographic shift of Christianity to the Southern Hemisphere and noting the increasingly religious nature of populations around the world. At the same time, writers on the future of religion have been drawn to extreme portrayals of decline or revival of religion. However, the world's religious situation is replete with detailed information, drawn from enormous data collections on religious affiliation and questions about religion in government censuses. Quantitative tools, utilizing this information in the context of demography provide a more nuanced view of humankind's religious future. Demographic trends coupled with conservative estimates of conversions and defections envision over 80% of the world's population will continue to be affiliated with religions 200 years into the future. This religious future will have a profound influence on Christian theology, relations between religions, and the interaction between religion and politics.