Gaukroger Stephen
Unit for the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Stud Hist Philos Sci. 2016 Aug;58:108-14. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.03.007. Epub 2016 Apr 16.
Kant believed that the ultimate processes that regulate the behavior of material bodies can be characterized exclusively in terms of mechanics. In 1790, turning his attention to the life sciences, he raised a potential problem for his mechanically-based account, namely that many of the operations described in the life sciences seemed to operate teleologically. He argued that the life sciences do indeed require us to think in teleological terms, but that this is a fact about us, not about the processes themselves. Nevertheless, even were we to concede his account of the life sciences, this would not secure the credentials of mechanics as a general theory of matter. Hardly any material properties studied in the second half of the eighteenth century were, or could have been, conceived in mechanical terms. Kant's concern with teleology is tangential to the problems facing a general matter theory grounded in mechanics, for the most pressing issues have nothing to do with teleology. They derive rather from a lack of any connection between mechanical forces and material properties. This is evident in chemistry, which Kant dismisses as being unscientific on the grounds that it cannot be formulated in mechanical terms.
康德认为,调节物质实体行为的终极过程完全可以用机械学来描述。1790年,他将注意力转向生命科学时,发现他基于机械学的观点存在一个潜在问题,即生命科学中描述的许多运作似乎都具有目的论性质。他认为,生命科学确实要求我们从目的论角度思考,但这是关于我们的事实,而非关于这些过程本身的事实。然而,即便我们承认他对生命科学的解释,这也无法确保机械学作为一种物质的通用理论的可靠性。18世纪下半叶研究的几乎所有物质属性,过去未曾、现在也无法从机械学角度来构想。康德对目的论的关注与基于机械学的通用物质理论所面临的问题没有直接关系,因为最紧迫的问题与目的论毫无关联。这些问题恰恰源于机械力与物质属性之间缺乏任何联系。这在化学中表现得很明显,康德认为化学不科学,理由是它无法用机械学术语来表述。