Caplan A L
J Med Philos. 1986 Feb;11(1):93-105. doi: 10.1093/jmp/11.1.93.
The contributions that the philosophy of medicine can make to both the philosophy of science and the practice of science have been obscured in recent years by an overemphasis on personalities rather than critical themes. Two themes have dominated general discussion within contemporary philosophy of science: methodological essentialism and dynamic gradualism. These themes are defined and considered in light of Kenneth Schaffner's argument that theories in biomedicine have a structure and logic unlike that found in theories of the natural sciences. Schaffner's arguments are suggestive but not definitive as a refutation of methodological essentialism. I argue that a primary reason for differences in the logic and structure of theories in biomedicine is not, as some philosophers have suggested, a product of ontological differences, but rather a product of the practical and pragmatic concerns of scientific theorizing in many areas of science, such as medicine.
近年来,由于过度强调个人而非批判性主题,医学哲学对科学哲学和科学实践所能做出的贡献被掩盖了。当代科学哲学中的一般性讨论主要受两个主题主导:方法论本质主义和动态渐进主义。这些主题是根据肯尼斯·沙夫纳的观点来定义和考量的,即生物医学理论具有一种与自然科学理论不同的结构和逻辑。沙夫纳的观点具有启发性,但作为对方法论本质主义的反驳并不具有决定性。我认为,生物医学理论在逻辑和结构上存在差异的一个主要原因,并非如一些哲学家所认为的那样,是本体论差异的产物,而是医学等许多科学领域中科学理论化的实践和实用考量的产物。