Hroar Klempe Sven
Department of Psychology, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2011 Jun;45(2):216-22. doi: 10.1007/s12124-011-9160-0.
This article focuses on some principles for understanding. By taking Anna Mikulak's article "Mismatches between 'scientific' and 'non-scientific' ways of knowing and their contributions to public understanding of science" (IPBS 2011) as a point of departure, the idea of demarcation criteria for scientific and non-scientific discourses is addressed. Yet this is juxtaposed with mythical thinking, which is supposed to be the most salient trait of non-scientific discourses. The author demonstrates how the most widespread demarcation criterion, the criterion of verification, is self-contradictory, not only when it comes to logic, but also in the achievement of isolating natural sciences from other forms of knowledge. According to Aristotle induction is a rhetorical device and as far as scientific statements are based on inductive inferences, they are relying on humanities, which rhetoric is a part of. Yet induction also has an empirical component by being based on sense-impressions, which is not a part of the rhetoric, but the psychology. Also the myths are understood in a rhetorical (Lévi-Strauss) and a psychological (Cassirer) perspective. Thus it is argued that both scientific and non-scientific discourses can be mythical.
本文聚焦于一些理解的原则。以安娜·米库拉克的文章《“科学”与“非科学”认知方式的不匹配及其对公众科学理解的贡献》(《公众对科学的理解》,2011年)为出发点,探讨了科学与非科学话语的划界标准这一概念。然而,这与神话思维形成了对比,神话思维被认为是非科学话语最显著的特征。作者论证了最广泛使用的划界标准——可证实性标准,不仅在逻辑方面自相矛盾,而且在将自然科学与其他知识形式区分开来这一点上也是如此。根据亚里士多德的观点,归纳是一种修辞手段,就科学陈述基于归纳推理而言,它们依赖于人文学科,而修辞学是其中的一部分。然而,归纳也有基于感官印象的经验成分,这不属于修辞学,而是心理学的一部分。神话也从修辞学(列维 - 斯特劳斯)和心理学(卡西尔)的角度来理解。因此,可以认为科学和非科学话语都可能具有神话色彩。