两种文化语境下的中俄科学哲学比较研究
|
摘要
俄(苏)科学哲学在继承马克思主义的传统中,提出了与西方思想界迥异的一系列独创性的理论思想,留下了丰富的典籍。在西方科学哲学的范式长期居于主流地位的情况下,俄(苏)科学哲学始终保持着自身特点,并没有被“同化”。尤其是在今天,当西方科学哲学的发展陷入困境之时,马克思主义传统的科学哲学却在不断拓展自身发展的空间,正日益显示出强大的生命力。因此,俄(苏)科学哲学作为一个具有特殊意义的参照系,非常值得深入地研究和探索。
论文遵循历史与逻辑相统一的方法论原则,通过对中俄科学哲学兴起的哲学基础、文化语境和时代背景的比较和梳理,概括了两国在思想、文化、科学观念等诸多方面的特点,阐释了两国在不同语境下的科学哲学发展的共性和各自特色,以及在科学哲学观念的整体导向上反映出来的理论特征。论文在总结两国科学哲学研究的社会文化传统的基础上,论证了马克思主义理论指导下我国和俄(苏)科学哲学研究的丰富的思想内容和优势,系统地探索并提出了科学哲学研究的问题域;通过对科学哲学理论研究中的重要基础理论问题——科学动力学、科学结构和科学基础进行主题比较研究,揭示了俄(苏)科学哲学从系统论的角度,研究科学哲学的基础理论问题的整体性和不可替代性,为我国的科学哲学研究带来有益的借鉴和启示。论文论证了中俄科学哲学比较研究的当代理论价值和实践意义,从社会文化的角度对科学进行的哲学研究,是科学哲学发展的必然趋势,这将有助于帮助我们梳理中国科学哲学演变的历史线索,为推进我国科学哲学的本土化研究,建设和发展具有中国特色的马克思主义科学哲学提供丰富的思想理论。
There exist two traditions in philosophy of science: the tradition of analytical empiricism in the western philosophy of science and the tradition of social culture in Soviet Russian and Chinese philosophy of science. The former is an important school of thoughts in western philosophy while the latter is based on dialectical materialism. So far, there has been insufficient attention from the western academics on philosophy of science research based on dialectical materialism. The problem is that the advantages of philosophy of science research with the guide of Marxism has not been recognized or summarized even though the advantages of this approach are apparent. Apart from the western philosophy of science, Soviet Russian philosophy of science has also accomplished peculiar theoretical achievements in Marxist tradition, which forms an important source of our thought.
The precondition of rational referencing is to conduct a comparative study of the commonness and peculiarities of philosophy of science of the two countries, particularly the comparison of the evolution and histories of philosophy of science of these two countries. Although both countries belong to Marxist tradition, there are great differences in their cultural backgrounds, philosophical origins and the historical progress of philosophy of science development. Therefore, we need to analyze and study more specifically. This forms the logical thread of this paper.
Chapter 1 is a comparison between the research traditions of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. In respect of ideological systems, there have formed two divergent traditions in philosophy of science research: the tradition of analytical empiricism and the tradition of the social culture. The representative of the former tradition is the western philosophy of science which is one of the important branches of western philosophy. The latter tradition is under the guidance of dialectical materialism and with Soviet Russian and Chinese philosophy of science as the representatives. Based on the dialectical materialism, Marxist philosophy of science examines science in a more extensive perspective: taking science as a social process to study its evolution and development; taking science as a social product to study its theories and methodology; taking science as a social productivity and a basis of guiding social development to study its social functions. The social historical school of the western philosophy of science has introduced social factors in the historical research of science. However, their philosophy did not break away from the analytical philosophy framework, which has resulted in insuperable difficulties in further development of the western philosophy of science. The social cultural orientation of philosophy of science is not simple reasoning and extension of Marxist social theories in the domain of philosophy of science, but rather a natural choice in the new phase of philosophy of science. To some extent, it represents the trend of philosophy of science.
Chapter 2 is a comparison between the contexts of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. Philosophy of science originated in the Soviet Union as a result of philosophy ideology development in the Soviet Union in 1960s. The rise of Soviet philosophy of science originated from the research of natural science philosophy issues in the Soviet period. It consists of two domains: (1) philosophy about the natural science itself which is the philosophical analysis conducted upon the objective contents of scientific theories about the outer world and natural phenomenon as well as the epistemic means of relevant experiments and theories used; (2) philosophical analysis conducted upon the natural science as a whole and each individual components with the objectives of expounding the rules and methods in understanding the objective world in the perspective of natural science theories, expounding the structure of scientific theory and the relationship between empirical and theoretical levels in scientific understanding. Research from this angle focuses on the structure of scientific theories, methodology of scientific understanding, theoretical principles and proofs as well as the rule of scientific development. These aspects are referred to as“aspects of philosophy of science”by Soviet scholars. Chinese philosophy of science originated from the research paradigm transition of the natural dialectics. At the end of 1990s, the research paradigm of natural dialectics has seen a variety of transition including philosophy of science, scientific methodology, history of scientific thoughts, sociology of science, natural philosophy, and so on. In traditional natural dialectical research, researchers usually have profound natural science foundation and their research mainly focuses on natural perspective and science perspective. With the transition of research paradigm, philosophy of science has become a spotlight, which has led to great transition in the research contents, methodology and research teams in natural dialectics study.
There are commonness and differences in philosophy of science of the Soviet Union and the modern China. The commonness is the inclusion of relevant philosophy of science research in their respective philosophical research. The Soviet natural science philosophical issues consist of“philosophy of science aspects”, while scientific dynamics and scientific methodology has always been inseparable components in Chinese natural dialectics research. The differences include, first, Soviet research of philosophical issues in natural science is an important period in the development of Soviet Russian philosophy of science. To some extent, from the research of philosophical issues in natural science to the rise of philosophy of science in the Soviet Union, there is no radical change to the research contents, but rather, the research focus has shifted from philosophy of natural science itself to philosophical analysis of natural science as a whole. Chinese philosophy of science has developed from natural dialectics and depended upon the introduction of western philosophy of science. Secondly, in developing philosophy of science, both Russia and China have to face conflicts between the national culture and western culture, but with some differences. In Russia, the East-West conflict is internal while the cultural conflicts the Chinese face are external. Thirdly, in traditional Chinese culture,“secular”culture is dominant, while“monastic”culture is dominant in Russia. The rise of philosophy of science in Russia is determined, to a great extent, by its own philosophical thoughts and is part of the overall transformation of the Soviet philosophical thoughts. In contrary, in China, although traditional natural dialectics research has formed a profound foundation, the transition of research focus from scientific natural perspective to scientific epistemology and methodology depends on the external force, i.e. western philosophy of science. The Soviet scholars bring issues into their own philosophical system and raise questions and solve them in their own way. Therefore, the Soviet scholars selectively absorb western philosophy of science whereas their Chinese counterparts almost bring in the whole lot from the west which makes localized research insufficient.
Chapter 3 is a comparison between the themes of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. Issues in philosophy of science research are summarized and comparative studies are conducted upon scientific dynamics, structure and foundation. The research of Russian scientific dynamics focuses on three aspects: (1) research of scientific development status. At different stages of scientific development, there are two statuses: gradual as opposed against extensive development style and transilient as opposed to intensive development. That a new theory takes the place of an old one is realized in the process of scientific development. It does not happen without a long process. (2) Research of scientific development process. Soviet scholars have proposed the concept of graphic formula of the basic theory. In conventional science period, when corresponding knowledge systems are extrapolated into practical new domains, the original graphic formula of the basic theory remains unchanged. The reform of graphic formula of the basic theory is called scientific revolution. In conventional science period, graphic formula of the basic theory is allowed to change in part. Through the concept of graphic formula of the basic theory, Soviet scholars give reasonable explanation to the nature of scientific revolution. (3) Research of scientific development motives. Hessen episode initiated research of externalism and C. P. Mikulinski initiated research of synthesis theory. Scientific dynamic research in China mainly centers on two themes: scientific development patterns and scientific progress. The research includes aspects of: (1) review of western philosophy of science theories; (2) comparative studies of various schools in western philosophy of science; and (3) research of gradual creative styles.
The Russian scientific structure research consists of two aspects: the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge and the structure of theoretical explanation of the empirical materials. Chinese scientific structure research mainly focuses on the first aspect. By comparing Sino-Russian scientific structure research, commonness is found in the following three points: (1) studying the scientific knowledge structure in a system perspective; (2) examining the scientific knowledge structure from the nature and existing way of scientific knowledge, which has avoided the defects of over emphasizing on the formal parsing in the western philosophy of science; (3) in terms of research methodology, Soviet Russian scholars prefer case studies while Chinese scholars prefer logical analysis.
In Russian philosophy of science research, there is a special domain, i.e. science foundation. B. C. Stepin proposed three components of science foundation: world prospect of science, thoughts and norms of science understanding activities and the philosophical foundation of science. The relationship among them is that world prospect of science and thoughts and norms of science understanding activities are two basic group components. World prospect of science is established on the basis of thoughts and norms of science understanding activities. Thoughts and norms of science understanding activities involve the explanation of concepts and norms, on which basis ontological hypotheses are introduced. Therefore, they have direct impacts on world prospects of science. The common groundwork of these two basic group components is philosophical foundation of science which connects the two group components to the social culture.
Chinese scholars think that in science, there exist explicit or implicit presumptions, such as scientific world outlook, science belief, science tradition, scientific methodology, scientific objectives, and guiding principles and so on. Among these, scientific world outlook is scientific world concepts, world outlook, cosmology, opinion of nature, world image, world pattern, and so on. Science belief is a concept hard to define. It is not a component of the theory but it is indispensable in scientific research. It usually has great impacts on scientists in their research directions, selection of research questions and research methodology. It sometimes is a motive of scientists in their scientific exploration. Science tradition generally refers to thoughts, morality, customs, art, systems and habits which inherit from the past. It is a reflection of cohesion and continuity of a nationality, culture or religion. Scientific objective is a generic word for belief, intuition, anticipation and social and cultural factors. Guiding principles are explicit or implicit presumptions that guide scientific research and activities. They are interlocking with scientific presumptions of scientific world outlook, science belief, science tradition and scientific methodology.
Chapter 4 is the significance and contribution of the comparative study of the Sino-Russian philosophy of science. (1) Reference and absorption of significance achievements in Russian philosophy of science. The advantage of Marxist tradition in philosophy of science research should be recognized. It is the natural trend of philosophy of science development to do philosophical research in science from the social cultural perspective. Western philosophy of science is not the only frame of reference. The reason why western philosophy of science is stuck in the corner is that it does not surpass the frames of minds of the traditional epistemology and analytical philosophy. The only option for western philosophy of science to get out of the difficulty is to break through the frames of traditional epistemology and analytical philosophy and to develop philosophy of science towards scientific cultural philosophy. (2) Constructing and developing Chinese Marxist philosophy of science. The objective of the comparative study between philosophy of science that both belong to Marxist tradition is to provide reasonable suggestions in establishing and developing Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities. It helps us sort out the thread of Chinese philosophy of science evolution, formulate accurately the research domain of Chinese philosophy of science and understand philosophical contexts of Chinese philosophy of science emergence. (3) Serving construction of China’s modernization. The comparative study of Sino-Russian philosophy of science can help enhance the foundation level of our philosophy of science and expound the social dynamic mechanism of scientific development. On the other hand, the comparative study combines philosophy of science with the development of science and technology, which facilitates a better understanding of the relationship between science and socialist construction. It is certain that the fundamental objective is to construct and develop Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities. It is our mission to develop Marxist philosophy of science and we have no reason to give up this domain. Taking science as the research target, philosophy of science studies the structure and foundation of science, scientific methodology and patterns of scientific development dynamics. In Russia and China where social cultural tradition is prevalent, philosophy of science also studies the rules of interactions between science and society. Taking science as the research target, philosophical research of science is not the“patent”of any particular school of philosophy. Marxist philosophy of science of the social cultural tradition has shown its advantages in research. Soviet Russian scholars have made achievements, greatly different from their western counterparts, which demonstrate the advantage of studying philosophy of science from the Marxist perspective. It is not only our important theoretical task but also non-shirking and historic responsibility to construct Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities.
论文遵循历史与逻辑相统一的方法论原则,通过对中俄科学哲学兴起的哲学基础、文化语境和时代背景的比较和梳理,概括了两国在思想、文化、科学观念等诸多方面的特点,阐释了两国在不同语境下的科学哲学发展的共性和各自特色,以及在科学哲学观念的整体导向上反映出来的理论特征。论文在总结两国科学哲学研究的社会文化传统的基础上,论证了马克思主义理论指导下我国和俄(苏)科学哲学研究的丰富的思想内容和优势,系统地探索并提出了科学哲学研究的问题域;通过对科学哲学理论研究中的重要基础理论问题——科学动力学、科学结构和科学基础进行主题比较研究,揭示了俄(苏)科学哲学从系统论的角度,研究科学哲学的基础理论问题的整体性和不可替代性,为我国的科学哲学研究带来有益的借鉴和启示。论文论证了中俄科学哲学比较研究的当代理论价值和实践意义,从社会文化的角度对科学进行的哲学研究,是科学哲学发展的必然趋势,这将有助于帮助我们梳理中国科学哲学演变的历史线索,为推进我国科学哲学的本土化研究,建设和发展具有中国特色的马克思主义科学哲学提供丰富的思想理论。
There exist two traditions in philosophy of science: the tradition of analytical empiricism in the western philosophy of science and the tradition of social culture in Soviet Russian and Chinese philosophy of science. The former is an important school of thoughts in western philosophy while the latter is based on dialectical materialism. So far, there has been insufficient attention from the western academics on philosophy of science research based on dialectical materialism. The problem is that the advantages of philosophy of science research with the guide of Marxism has not been recognized or summarized even though the advantages of this approach are apparent. Apart from the western philosophy of science, Soviet Russian philosophy of science has also accomplished peculiar theoretical achievements in Marxist tradition, which forms an important source of our thought.
The precondition of rational referencing is to conduct a comparative study of the commonness and peculiarities of philosophy of science of the two countries, particularly the comparison of the evolution and histories of philosophy of science of these two countries. Although both countries belong to Marxist tradition, there are great differences in their cultural backgrounds, philosophical origins and the historical progress of philosophy of science development. Therefore, we need to analyze and study more specifically. This forms the logical thread of this paper.
Chapter 1 is a comparison between the research traditions of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. In respect of ideological systems, there have formed two divergent traditions in philosophy of science research: the tradition of analytical empiricism and the tradition of the social culture. The representative of the former tradition is the western philosophy of science which is one of the important branches of western philosophy. The latter tradition is under the guidance of dialectical materialism and with Soviet Russian and Chinese philosophy of science as the representatives. Based on the dialectical materialism, Marxist philosophy of science examines science in a more extensive perspective: taking science as a social process to study its evolution and development; taking science as a social product to study its theories and methodology; taking science as a social productivity and a basis of guiding social development to study its social functions. The social historical school of the western philosophy of science has introduced social factors in the historical research of science. However, their philosophy did not break away from the analytical philosophy framework, which has resulted in insuperable difficulties in further development of the western philosophy of science. The social cultural orientation of philosophy of science is not simple reasoning and extension of Marxist social theories in the domain of philosophy of science, but rather a natural choice in the new phase of philosophy of science. To some extent, it represents the trend of philosophy of science.
Chapter 2 is a comparison between the contexts of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. Philosophy of science originated in the Soviet Union as a result of philosophy ideology development in the Soviet Union in 1960s. The rise of Soviet philosophy of science originated from the research of natural science philosophy issues in the Soviet period. It consists of two domains: (1) philosophy about the natural science itself which is the philosophical analysis conducted upon the objective contents of scientific theories about the outer world and natural phenomenon as well as the epistemic means of relevant experiments and theories used; (2) philosophical analysis conducted upon the natural science as a whole and each individual components with the objectives of expounding the rules and methods in understanding the objective world in the perspective of natural science theories, expounding the structure of scientific theory and the relationship between empirical and theoretical levels in scientific understanding. Research from this angle focuses on the structure of scientific theories, methodology of scientific understanding, theoretical principles and proofs as well as the rule of scientific development. These aspects are referred to as“aspects of philosophy of science”by Soviet scholars. Chinese philosophy of science originated from the research paradigm transition of the natural dialectics. At the end of 1990s, the research paradigm of natural dialectics has seen a variety of transition including philosophy of science, scientific methodology, history of scientific thoughts, sociology of science, natural philosophy, and so on. In traditional natural dialectical research, researchers usually have profound natural science foundation and their research mainly focuses on natural perspective and science perspective. With the transition of research paradigm, philosophy of science has become a spotlight, which has led to great transition in the research contents, methodology and research teams in natural dialectics study.
There are commonness and differences in philosophy of science of the Soviet Union and the modern China. The commonness is the inclusion of relevant philosophy of science research in their respective philosophical research. The Soviet natural science philosophical issues consist of“philosophy of science aspects”, while scientific dynamics and scientific methodology has always been inseparable components in Chinese natural dialectics research. The differences include, first, Soviet research of philosophical issues in natural science is an important period in the development of Soviet Russian philosophy of science. To some extent, from the research of philosophical issues in natural science to the rise of philosophy of science in the Soviet Union, there is no radical change to the research contents, but rather, the research focus has shifted from philosophy of natural science itself to philosophical analysis of natural science as a whole. Chinese philosophy of science has developed from natural dialectics and depended upon the introduction of western philosophy of science. Secondly, in developing philosophy of science, both Russia and China have to face conflicts between the national culture and western culture, but with some differences. In Russia, the East-West conflict is internal while the cultural conflicts the Chinese face are external. Thirdly, in traditional Chinese culture,“secular”culture is dominant, while“monastic”culture is dominant in Russia. The rise of philosophy of science in Russia is determined, to a great extent, by its own philosophical thoughts and is part of the overall transformation of the Soviet philosophical thoughts. In contrary, in China, although traditional natural dialectics research has formed a profound foundation, the transition of research focus from scientific natural perspective to scientific epistemology and methodology depends on the external force, i.e. western philosophy of science. The Soviet scholars bring issues into their own philosophical system and raise questions and solve them in their own way. Therefore, the Soviet scholars selectively absorb western philosophy of science whereas their Chinese counterparts almost bring in the whole lot from the west which makes localized research insufficient.
Chapter 3 is a comparison between the themes of Chinese and Russian philosophy of science. Issues in philosophy of science research are summarized and comparative studies are conducted upon scientific dynamics, structure and foundation. The research of Russian scientific dynamics focuses on three aspects: (1) research of scientific development status. At different stages of scientific development, there are two statuses: gradual as opposed against extensive development style and transilient as opposed to intensive development. That a new theory takes the place of an old one is realized in the process of scientific development. It does not happen without a long process. (2) Research of scientific development process. Soviet scholars have proposed the concept of graphic formula of the basic theory. In conventional science period, when corresponding knowledge systems are extrapolated into practical new domains, the original graphic formula of the basic theory remains unchanged. The reform of graphic formula of the basic theory is called scientific revolution. In conventional science period, graphic formula of the basic theory is allowed to change in part. Through the concept of graphic formula of the basic theory, Soviet scholars give reasonable explanation to the nature of scientific revolution. (3) Research of scientific development motives. Hessen episode initiated research of externalism and C. P. Mikulinski initiated research of synthesis theory. Scientific dynamic research in China mainly centers on two themes: scientific development patterns and scientific progress. The research includes aspects of: (1) review of western philosophy of science theories; (2) comparative studies of various schools in western philosophy of science; and (3) research of gradual creative styles.
The Russian scientific structure research consists of two aspects: the empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge and the structure of theoretical explanation of the empirical materials. Chinese scientific structure research mainly focuses on the first aspect. By comparing Sino-Russian scientific structure research, commonness is found in the following three points: (1) studying the scientific knowledge structure in a system perspective; (2) examining the scientific knowledge structure from the nature and existing way of scientific knowledge, which has avoided the defects of over emphasizing on the formal parsing in the western philosophy of science; (3) in terms of research methodology, Soviet Russian scholars prefer case studies while Chinese scholars prefer logical analysis.
In Russian philosophy of science research, there is a special domain, i.e. science foundation. B. C. Stepin proposed three components of science foundation: world prospect of science, thoughts and norms of science understanding activities and the philosophical foundation of science. The relationship among them is that world prospect of science and thoughts and norms of science understanding activities are two basic group components. World prospect of science is established on the basis of thoughts and norms of science understanding activities. Thoughts and norms of science understanding activities involve the explanation of concepts and norms, on which basis ontological hypotheses are introduced. Therefore, they have direct impacts on world prospects of science. The common groundwork of these two basic group components is philosophical foundation of science which connects the two group components to the social culture.
Chinese scholars think that in science, there exist explicit or implicit presumptions, such as scientific world outlook, science belief, science tradition, scientific methodology, scientific objectives, and guiding principles and so on. Among these, scientific world outlook is scientific world concepts, world outlook, cosmology, opinion of nature, world image, world pattern, and so on. Science belief is a concept hard to define. It is not a component of the theory but it is indispensable in scientific research. It usually has great impacts on scientists in their research directions, selection of research questions and research methodology. It sometimes is a motive of scientists in their scientific exploration. Science tradition generally refers to thoughts, morality, customs, art, systems and habits which inherit from the past. It is a reflection of cohesion and continuity of a nationality, culture or religion. Scientific objective is a generic word for belief, intuition, anticipation and social and cultural factors. Guiding principles are explicit or implicit presumptions that guide scientific research and activities. They are interlocking with scientific presumptions of scientific world outlook, science belief, science tradition and scientific methodology.
Chapter 4 is the significance and contribution of the comparative study of the Sino-Russian philosophy of science. (1) Reference and absorption of significance achievements in Russian philosophy of science. The advantage of Marxist tradition in philosophy of science research should be recognized. It is the natural trend of philosophy of science development to do philosophical research in science from the social cultural perspective. Western philosophy of science is not the only frame of reference. The reason why western philosophy of science is stuck in the corner is that it does not surpass the frames of minds of the traditional epistemology and analytical philosophy. The only option for western philosophy of science to get out of the difficulty is to break through the frames of traditional epistemology and analytical philosophy and to develop philosophy of science towards scientific cultural philosophy. (2) Constructing and developing Chinese Marxist philosophy of science. The objective of the comparative study between philosophy of science that both belong to Marxist tradition is to provide reasonable suggestions in establishing and developing Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities. It helps us sort out the thread of Chinese philosophy of science evolution, formulate accurately the research domain of Chinese philosophy of science and understand philosophical contexts of Chinese philosophy of science emergence. (3) Serving construction of China’s modernization. The comparative study of Sino-Russian philosophy of science can help enhance the foundation level of our philosophy of science and expound the social dynamic mechanism of scientific development. On the other hand, the comparative study combines philosophy of science with the development of science and technology, which facilitates a better understanding of the relationship between science and socialist construction. It is certain that the fundamental objective is to construct and develop Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities. It is our mission to develop Marxist philosophy of science and we have no reason to give up this domain. Taking science as the research target, philosophy of science studies the structure and foundation of science, scientific methodology and patterns of scientific development dynamics. In Russia and China where social cultural tradition is prevalent, philosophy of science also studies the rules of interactions between science and society. Taking science as the research target, philosophical research of science is not the“patent”of any particular school of philosophy. Marxist philosophy of science of the social cultural tradition has shown its advantages in research. Soviet Russian scholars have made achievements, greatly different from their western counterparts, which demonstrate the advantage of studying philosophy of science from the Marxist perspective. It is not only our important theoretical task but also non-shirking and historic responsibility to construct Marxist philosophy of science with Chinese peculiarities.
引文
[1]目前在学术研究中,关于前苏联及其解体后俄罗斯的称呼种类很多,本论文统一使用“俄(苏)”,特指前苏联及其解体后的俄罗斯。
[2] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[3] [俄]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].哲学译丛.1978(2):49.
[1]〔美〕罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].社会科学文献出版社.1988.100—104.
[2] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union.[M]Columbia University Press.1987.1.
[1]董光壁.科学哲学的两种传统[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):15.
[1]弗雷格.他的逻辑和他的哲学——迈克·比尼访谈录[J].世界哲学.2010(2):69—73.
[2] B.Russell.OurKnowledge of the External World. London:Allen and Unwin,1926.42.转引自江怡.分析哲学中的“分析”概念.云南大学学报(社会科学版)2006(2):26—27.
[1] [奥]克拉夫特著.李步楼,陈维杭译.维也纳学派——新实证主义的起源[M].商务印书馆.1998. 31—32.
[2]洪谦.论逻辑经验主义[M].商务印书馆.1999.272.
[3] [美]W.V.奎因.经验主义的两个教条.载洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].商务印书馆.1984.673.
[1] [美]W.V.奎因.经验主义的两个教条.载洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].商务印书馆.1984.694.
[2] [美]W.V.奎因.经验主义的两个教条.载洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].商务印书馆.1984.695.
[3]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].黑龙江人民出版社.2009.176—177.
[1]肖显静.科学实在论的出路与方法论的重建——从科学语言的角度重构科学的真理性[Z].光明网http://www.sina.com.cn 2005年06月09日.
[2]陈波.分析哲学的价值[J].中国社会科学.1997(4).63.
[1] [德] H.赖欣巴哈.科学哲学的兴起[M].商务印书馆.1983.3.
[2] [奥]克拉夫特著.李步楼,陈维杭译.维也纳学派——新实证主义的起源[M].商务印书馆.1998. 30.
[3]转引自[奥]鲁道夫.哈勒著.韩林合译.新实证主义——维也纳学圈哲学史导论[M].商务印书馆.1998. 230.
[1]洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(上卷)[M].商务印书馆. 1982.13—14.
[2]张盾.作为一个话语系统的分析哲学[J].吉林大学社会科学学报.1989(6)89.
[1]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].生活?读书?新知.三联书店.1987.5.
[2] [美]托马斯?库恩.是发现的逻辑还是研究的心理学?[M].伊姆雷?拉卡托斯,艾兰?马斯格雷夫著.周昌忠译.批判与知识的增长.华夏出版社.1987.1.
[3]董光壁.科学哲学的两种传统[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):15.
[4]Мамчур,Е.А.,Овчинников,Н.Ф.,Огурцов,А.П.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.М.:РОССПЭН. 1997, 1.
[5]Мамчур,Е.А.Овчинников.Н.Ф.ОгурцовА.П.Отечественная,философиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].:РОССПЭН. 1997, 1.
[1]Мамчур,Е.А.,Овчинников,Н.Ф.,Огурцов,А.П.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН. 1997, 1.
[2]Мамчур,Е.А.,Овчинников,Н.Ф.,Огурцов,А.П.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.[M].РОССПЭН. 1997, 3. (此处译文引自孙慕天、孙文超的未刊译稿,在此致谢。)
[1]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.[M]Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):5.
[2]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.[M]Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):5.
[3]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.[M]Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):7.
[1]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):7.
[2]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):8.
[1]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):9.
[1]孟建伟.从科学哲学走向科学文化哲学[J].自然辩证法研究.2003(6):25.
[1]孟建伟.从科学哲学走向科学文化哲学[J].自然辩证法研究.2003(6):25—27.
[2]孟建伟.科学哲学的范式转变——科学文化哲学论纲[J].社会科学战线.2007(1):20—21.
[1] [苏]C.T.麦柳欣.苏联自然科学哲学教程[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1989.2.
[2] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.2-3.
[1]参见苏联科学院现代自然科学哲学问题研究会哲学研究所编《现代自然科学中的哲学思想斗争》,该书是苏联在1975年召开的“现代自然科学中的哲学问题学术讨论会”文集。它搜集了苏联研究自然科学哲学问题的一些头面人物的发言,文集的主题涉及广泛,除上述提到的,还包括科学观、科学方法论的一些问题,以及对西方科学哲学思潮的评价和批判。该书于1983年3月,由黑龙江省自然辩证法研究会下属的苏联自然科学哲学问题研究会译成中文,未公开出版。
[1]孙慕天.论苏联自然科学哲学的历史地位[J].自然辩证法研究.2005(4):103.
[2]刘啸霆.自觉迎接自然辩证法的范式转换[J].自然辩证法研究.2002(1):56.
[3]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.111.
[1] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union.[M] Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[1]刘啸霆.自觉迎接自然辩证法的范式转换[J].自然辩证法研究.2002(1):58.
[2]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):23.
[3]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.476.
[4]孙玉忠.“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”与科学的社会学研究[J].学习与探索.2010(3):118.
[1]王者业,李昆峰.论自然辩证法学科的中国文化特色[J].自然辩证法通讯. 1990(3):71.
[2]参见《人民日报》社论.苏联走向共产主义的巨大步骤[N].人民日报.1958.11.16.
[3]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[Z].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.150.
[4]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[Z].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.152.
[1]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[Z].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.155.
[1]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.381.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.385.
[3]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.380.
[1]参见范岱年.关于我国科学哲学研究的粗略回顾与展望[J].自然辩证法研究.1986(2):15.
[1]安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2003.前言5.
[2][俄]B.梅茹耶夫.俄罗斯并不为盖达尔改革欢呼[N].载独立报.1997.02.13.转引自安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学.中国人民大学出版社.2003.5.
[3]安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2003.前言5.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.407.
[2]孙慕天.论苏联自然科学哲学的历史地位[J].自然辩证法研究. 2005(4):99.
[3] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[4] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[1]江怡.维也纳学派宣言80周年(上)[J].世界哲学.2009(6).5.
[2]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):21.
[3]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):21.
[4]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):21.
[5]江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学.2009(6):7.
[1]江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学.2009(6):13.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.50.
[3]转引自江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学.2009(6):15.
[4]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):23.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.М.:РОССПЭН,1997,255.
[2]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金.2007(4):202.
[1]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金.2007(4):202.
[2]胡新和.科学哲学在中国——历史、现状与未来[J].湛江师范学院学报.2002(10):7.
[1]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].上海:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.5.
[2] [美]托马斯?库恩.是发现的逻辑还是研究的心理学[M].伊姆雷?拉卡托斯,艾兰?马斯格雷夫.周昌忠译.批判与知识的增长.北京:华夏出版社,1987.1.
[1]顾芳福.苏联对西方科学哲学的研究.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].知识出版社,1982.438.
[2]顾芳福.苏联对西方科学哲学的研究.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].知识出版社,1982.439.
[3]王彦君.俄罗斯科学哲学研究[M].黑龙江人民出版社,2008.57.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.М.:РОССПЭН,1997,251.
[2] [俄]弗拉基斯拉夫?让诺维奇?凯列.论当代俄罗斯的科学哲学[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2003(4):2
[3]参见任元彪.20世纪中国科学技术哲学简述[J].自然辩证法研究.2002(4):20.
[1]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[M].天津社会科学.2008(1):23.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学.北京:人民出版社[M].1998.380.
[3]胡新和.科学哲学三十年——从历届全国科学哲学学术会议看中国科学哲学的发展.自然辩证法研究[J].2009(10):79.
[1]孙玉忠.“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”与科学的社会学研究.学习与探索[J].2010(3):118.
[2]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[M].天津:天津社会科学出版社.2008(1):21.
[1]胡新和.科学哲学三十年——从历届全国科学哲学学术会议看中国科学哲学的发展.自然辩证法研究[J].2009(10):79.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.396-397.
[1]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].上海:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.5.
[2]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.140.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,252.
[2] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1984.77.
[1] [苏]Б.С.伊利扎罗夫,С.С.伊利扎罗夫.论科学知识发展和积累的再建模式[N].自然辩证法(报刊复印资料)1984(7):74.
[2] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.77.
[3]转引自[俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.77.
[4] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.78.
[5] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.78.
[1]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.164-165.
[2] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学理论的形成.明斯克.1976.转引自Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.79.
[1] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.79.
[2] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.79—80.
[3] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学理论的形成.明斯克.1976.56.转引自Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.80.
[4] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.81.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.138.
[2] B.Hessen.The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s‘Principia’[M].Science at the Cross Roads. Bush House,Aldwych,London.1931.152.
[3] B.Hessen.The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s‘Principia’[M].Science at the Cross Roads. Bush House, Aldwych, London.1931.154.
[1]龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.166.
[2]参见龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.166.
[3]参见龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.168.
[4]转引自龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.167.
[1]С.Р.Микулинский.Очеркиразвитияисторико-научноймысли.М.Наука.1988:57-58.转引自张明雯.俄罗斯和苏联科学哲学与科学史研究[M].黑龙江人民出版社.2009.90.
[2]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.138.
[3]张明雯,孙忠艳.米库林斯基与科学编史学[J].自然辩证法研究.2005(4):108.
[4]万小龙.预见与创新:中国科学哲学家的任务.自然辩证法通讯[J]. 2000(3): 19.
[1]成素梅.逻辑经验主义的科学理论观及其影响[J].社会科学.2009(1):126.
[2]曹秋华.证伪主义的科学进步标准[J].自然辩证法研究.1987(4)
[3]李醒民.库恩科学革命观的新进展[J].思想战线.1991(3)
[1]舒炜光,邱仁宗.当代西方科学哲学述评[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.8.
[2]舒炜光,邱仁宗.当代西方科学哲学述评[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.11.
[3]韩来平,邢润川.科学价值论转向过程中的几个疑难——兼评“科学→价值”的科学进步模式.自然辩证法研究[J].2004(6):26.
[1]李醒民.科学革命的实质与科学进步的图象[J].科学学研究.1986(4)
[2]曹秋华.意义与科学进步.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):19.
[1]顾速.科学进步的合理性.科学技术与辩证法[J].1990(2)
[2]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):1.
[3]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):2.
[4]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):3.
[5]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):4.
[1]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):5.
[2]孙玉忠.论科学发展中的中间范式.自然辩证法通讯[J].2001(5).
[3]陈其荣.论科学合理性与科学进步.自然辩证法研究[J].2002(2).
[4]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[М].РОССПЭН,1997,254—255.
[1]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL].http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[2]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,257—258.
[3]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL].http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,259—260.
[2]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社. 1984.87.
[3]В.С.Степин,Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция[OL].2000.ru.philosophy.kiev. ua/pers/stepin/index.htm.
[4]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,258.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,261—265.
[1]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):2.
[2]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):2.
[3]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):2.
[1]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):3.
[2] [俄]В.А.卡尔普宁,Б.М.苏哈诺夫,В.И.沙罗格拉茨基.颜泽贤等译.自然科学和技术科学的方法论基础[Z].华南师院哲学社会科学研究所内部资料.1982.72.
[1] [俄]В.А.卡尔普宁,Б.М.苏哈诺夫,В.И.沙罗格拉茨基.颜泽贤等译.自然科学和技术科学的方法论基础[Z].华南师院哲学社会科学研究所内部资料.1982.77.
[2]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):4.
[3]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):4—5.
[4]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):6.
[5]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):6.
[1]В.С.Степин,Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция[OL].2000.ru.philosophy.kiev. ua/pers/stepin/index.htm.
[2]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,293.
[1] [俄]B.C.斯捷宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.384.
[2]Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция,M,2000.3.
[3] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.385.
[4] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.385.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.132.
[2] B.C.斯捷宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.387.
[1] B.C.斯捷宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.388—389.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,305.
[2]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL].http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[3]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,303.
[4]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,304.
[1]吴国盛.追溯近代科学之思想源流[J].自然辩证法研究.1995(12):70.
[2]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):16.
[3]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):16.
[4]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):17.
[1]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):20.
[2]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):21.
[3]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界. 2008(2):26.
[1]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):4.
[2] [俄]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].1978(2):50.
[3] [俄]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].1978(2):49.
[1]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.111.
[2]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯,1983(6):5
[1]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):5
[1]任元彪.中国科学技术哲学发展史研究路径探讨[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(4):67.
[2]任元彪.中国科学技术哲学发展史研究路径探讨[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(4):71.
[3]孙正聿.中国高校哲学社会科学发展报告哲学卷[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2008:58.
[4]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[M].天津:天津社会科学出版社,2008(1):24.
[1]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金,2007(4):202.
[2]顾芳福.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].北京:知识出版社,1982.451.
[1] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.99.
[2] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.100—104.
[3] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.8.
[1] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.5—6.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.50-51.
[1] [俄]C.P.米库林斯基.科学学[Z].科学与哲学(研究资料)1981:(6-7)20.
[2] [俄]C.P.米库林斯基.科学学[Z].科学与哲学(研究资料)1981:(6-7)21-22.
[1]刘猷桓.自然辩证法传统与科学哲学发展[J].吉林师范大学学报(人文社会科学版).2005(2):20.
[2]刘猷桓.自然辩证法的逻辑——从《自然辩证法》原著到《自然辩证法原理》[J].自然辩证法研究.2009(10):9.
[3]刘猷桓.自然辩证法的逻辑——从《自然辩证法》原著到《自然辩证法原理》[J].自然辩证法研究.2009(10):9.
[1]孙慕天.科学哲学在苏联的兴起[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987:(1)11.
[2] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.改革:哲学的意义和人的使命[J].哲学译丛,1990(2):40.
[3] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.改革:哲学的意义和人的使命[J].哲学译丛,1990(2):40.
[1]张功耀.我国科学技术哲学的学科转型及其新的学术使命[M].载中国自然辩证法研究会,中国科学院研究生院编.自然辩证法走进新世纪.哈尔滨:哈尔滨出版社,2002.82.
[2]胡新和.科学哲学在中国——历史、现状与未来[J].湛江师范学院学报,2002(10):7.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.68.
[2]孙慕天.但开风气不为师——论自然辩证法的社会责任[J].自然辫证法研究.2003(12):46.
[1]安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[2]陈之骅,吴恩远,马龙闪.苏联兴亡史纲[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[3]龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
[4]顾芳福.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].北京:知识出版社,1982.
[5]洪谦.论逻辑经验主义[M].上海:商务印书馆,1999.
[6]洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(上卷)[M].上海:商务印书馆,1982.
[7]洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].上海:商务印书馆,1984.
[8]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].上海:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.
[9]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.
[10]刘猷桓.走进恩格斯:<自然辩证法>探索[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2005.
[11]沈志华.一个大国的崛起与崩溃——苏联历史专题研究(1917-1991)(上、中、下册)[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2009.
[12]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.
[13]孙慕天.跋涉的理性[M].北京:知识出版社,2006.
[14]孙乃纪,赵玲主编.科学技术原理论——自然辩证法基础[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1995.
[15]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.
[16]孙正聿.中国高校哲学社会科学发展报告哲学卷[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2008.
[17]舒炜光,邱仁宗.当代西方科学哲学述评[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[18]王彦君.俄罗斯科学哲学研究[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2008.
[19]王跃新.创新思维学[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2010.
[20]王跃新,赵玲等编著.现代科技革命与马克思主义[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2004.
[21]徐凤林.俄罗斯宗教哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[22]张明雯.俄罗斯和苏联科学哲学与科学史研究[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.
[23]郑祥福.范?弗拉森与后现代科学哲学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[24]中国自然辩证法研究会.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].北京:知识出版社,1982.
[25]中国自然辩证法研究会,中国科学院研究生院编.自然辩证法走进新世纪[M].哈尔滨:哈尔滨出版社,2002.
[26] [奥]克拉夫特.李步楼,陈维杭译.维也纳学派——新实证主义的起源[M].上海:商务印书馆,1998.
[27] [奥]鲁道夫.哈勒.韩林合译.新实证主义——维也纳学圈哲学史导论[M].上海:商务印书馆,1998.
[28] [丹]赫尔奇?克拉夫.任定成译.科学史学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[29] [德]H.赖欣巴哈.科学哲学的兴起[M].上海:商务印书馆,1983.
[30] [德]卡尔?马克思,弗里德里希·冯·恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集[M].第4卷.北京:人民出版社,1972.
[31] [德]卡尔?马克思.资本论.马克思恩格斯全集[M].第23卷.北京:人民出版社,1972.
[32] [德]斯泰格缪勒.当代哲学主流[M].上海:商务印书馆,2000.
[33] [俄]Н.О.洛斯基.贾泽林译.俄国哲学史[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1999.
[34] [俄]尼?别尔嘉耶夫.雷永生,邱守娟译.俄罗斯思想[M].上海:三联书店,1996.
[35] [法]奥古斯特?孔德.实证哲学教程[M].参见《西方名著提要》.北京:中国青年出版社,1957.
[36] [美]伯纳德?科恩.科学中的革命[M].上海:商务印书馆,1999.
[37] [美]理查德?罗蒂.真理与进步[M].北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[38] [美]罗伯特?金?默顿.范岱年等译.十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会[M].上海:商务印书馆,2000.
[39] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.
[40] [美]斯蒂芬·F·科恩.布哈林政治传记[M].上海:东方出版社,1988.
[41] [美]托马斯·库恩.必要的张力[M].福州:福建人民出版社,1981.
[42] [美]托马斯·库恩.科学革命的结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[43] [美]托马斯·库恩.吴国盛译.科学史,科学思想史指南[M].成都:四川教育出版社,1997.
[44] [美]托马斯·库恩.范岱年,纪树立译.必要的张力——科学的传统和变革论文选[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[45] [美]伊姆雷·拉卡托斯,艾兰·马斯格雷夫著.周昌忠译.批判与知识的增长[M].北京:华夏出版社.1987.
[46] [苏]Р.巴兰金.孙佩林译.维尔纳茨基——生平·思想·业绩[M].北京:科学出版社,1987.
[47] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.孙慕天等译.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.
[48] [苏]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性欲认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.
[49] [苏]麦柳欣.孙慕天等译.苏联自然科学哲学教程[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
[50] [苏]苏联科学院现代自然科学哲学问题研究会哲学研究所.现代自然科学中的哲学思想斗争[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江省自然辩证法研究会译.1983.
[51] [英]J.D.贝尔纳.陈体芳译.科学的社会功能[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003.
[52] [英]洛伦.R.格雷厄姆.叶式辉、黄一勤译.俄罗斯和苏联科学简史[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2000.
[53]曹秋华.意义与科学进步[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987(1).
[54]曹秋华.证伪主义的科学进步标准[J].自然辩证法研究,1987(4).
[55]陈波.分析哲学的价值[J].中国社会科学,1997(4).
[56]陈其荣.论科学合理性与科学进步[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(2).
[57]成素梅.逻辑经验主义的科学理论观及其影响[J].社会科学,2009(1).
[58]董光壁.科学哲学的两种传统[J].自然辩证法通讯,1983(6).
[59]范岱年.关于我国科学哲学研究的粗略回顾与展望[J].自然辩证法研究,1986(2).
[60]顾速.科学进步的合理性[J].科学技术与辩证法,1990(2).
[61]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金,2007(4).
[62]韩来平,邢润川.科学价值论转向过程中的几个疑难——兼评“科学→价值”的科学进步模式[J].自然辩证法研究,2004(6).
[63]贺来.辩证法研究的两种出发点[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2011(1).
[64]胡新和.科学哲学在中国——历史、现状与未来[J].湛江师范学院学报,2002(10).
[65]胡新和.科学哲学三十年——从历届全国科学哲学学术会议看中国科学哲学的发展[J].自然辩证法研究,2009(10).
[66]江怡.维也纳学派宣言80周年(上) [J].世界哲学,2009(6).
[67]江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学,2009(6).
[68]李海峰,刘猷桓.“自然”何以“辩证法”——《自然辩证法》文本学研究[J].科学技术与辩证法,2007(3).
[69]李海峰.科学认识主体和科学认识客体的发生[J].科学技术与辩证法,2002(4).
[70]李为.概念组织进化:图尔明对科学理性问题的解决[J].自然辩证法研究,2007(8).
[71]李为.图尔明20世纪50年代初对逻辑经验主义的批评[J].云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(1).
[72]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界,2008(2).
[73]李醒民.科学革命的实质与科学进步的图象[J].科学学研究,1986(4).
[74]李醒民.库恩科学革命观的新进展[J].思想战线,1991(3).
[75]李兴权.关于“维尔纳茨基-米库林斯基”学派的研究[J].科学学研究,1986(2).
[76]刘啸霆.自觉迎接自然辩证法的范式转换[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(1).
[77]刘猷桓.自然辩证法的逻辑——从《自然辩证法》原著到《自然辩证法原理》[J].自然辩证法研究,2009(10).
[78]刘猷桓.自然辩证法传统与科学哲学发展[J].吉林师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005(2).
[79]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析[J].自然辩证法研究,1995(5).
[80]孟建伟.从科学哲学走向科学文化哲学[J].自然辩证法研究,2003(6).
[81]孟建伟.科学哲学的范式转变——科学文化哲学论纲[J].社会科学战线,2007(1).
[82]任元彪.中国科学技术哲学发展史研究路径探讨[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(4).
[83]任元彪.20世纪中国科学技术哲学简述[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(4).
[84]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯,1983(6).
[85]孙利天.哲学为什么没有被遗忘[J].天津社会科学,2005(2).
[86]孙利天.中国哲学的未来[J].社会科学辑刊,2010(3).
[87]孙慕天.论苏联自然科学哲学的历史地位[J].自然辩证法研究,2005(4).
[88]孙慕天.科学哲学在苏联的兴起[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987(1).
[89]孙慕天.但开风气不为师——论自然辩证法的社会责任[J].自然辫证法研究,2003(12).
[90]孙慕天.第三种知识论纲[J].自然辩证法通讯,1996(1).
[91]孙玉忠.论科学发展中的中间范式[J].自然辩证法通讯,2001(5).
[92]孙玉忠.“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”与科学的社会学研究[J].学习与探索,2010(3).
[93]孙正聿.伟大的实践与实践的哲学——改革开放以来的中国马克思主义哲学[J].社会科学战线,2008(5).
[94]孙正聿.“世界3”与文化的前提批判[J].学习与探索,2009(5).
[95]万小龙.预见与创新:中国科学哲学家的任务[J].自然辩证法通讯,2000(3).
[96]王者业,李昆峰.论自然辩证法学科的中国文化特色[J].自然辩证法通讯,1990(3).
[97]王振林,王跃新.现代西方哲学的真理观及其启示[J].长白学刊,1997(1).
[98]吴国盛.追溯近代科学之思想源流[J].自然辩证法研究,1995(12).
[99]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学,2008(1).
[100]徐奉臻,王跃新.基于新型现代化的工具主义价值之省思[J].思想战线,2008(5).
[101]张盾.作为一个话语系统的分析哲学[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,1989(6).
[102]张明雯,孙忠艳.米库林斯基与科学编史学[J].自然辩证法研究, 2005(4).
[103]赵红洲,蒋国华.格森事件与科学学起源[J].科学学研究,1988,6(1).
[104]赵红洲,蒋国华.格森事件与科学学起源(续) [J].科学学研究,1988,6(2).
[105]赵玲.论自然观变革中的时间观问题[J].科学技术与辩证法,2001(4).
[106]赵玲.论现代自组织生态自然观的实质[J].社会科学战线,2001(4).
[107]赵玲.论自然观变革中的因果性和目的性[J].自然辩证法研究,2001(7).
[108]赵玲,王妍.构建和谐社会的基础:人与自然和谐[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2007(2).
[109]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987(1).
[110] [苏]Б.С.伊利扎罗夫,С.С.伊利扎罗夫.论科学知识发展和积累的再建模式[J].自然辩证法,1984(7).
[111] [苏]C.P.米库林斯基.科学学[J].科学与哲学,1981(6).
[112] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.改革:哲学的意义和人的使命[J].哲学译丛,1990(2).
[113] [苏]弗拉基斯拉夫·让诺维奇·凯列.论当代俄罗斯的科学哲学[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003(4).
[114] [德]弗雷格.他的逻辑和他的哲学——迈克·比尼访谈录[J].世界哲学,2010(2).
[115] [德]L.赫尔舍尔,新编年史:一种史学理论的纲要[J].世界哲学,2003(4).
[116] [美]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].哲学译丛,1978(2).
[117] [美]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(下)[J].哲学译丛,1978(3).
[118] [苏]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[C].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.
[119]《人民日报》社论.苏联走向共产主义的巨大步骤[N].人民日报,1958.11.16.
[120] [苏]В.А.卡尔普宁,Б.М.苏哈诺夫,В.И.沙罗格拉茨基.颜泽贤等译.自然科学和技术科学的方法论基础[Z].广州:华南师院哲学社会科学研究所内部资料.1982.
[121]肖显静.科学实在论的出路与方法论的重建——从科学语言的角度重构科学的真理性[OL].http://www.sina. com.cn ,2005年06月09日.
[122] N.I.Bukharin:Theory and Practice from the Standpoint of Dialectical Materialism[M].Science at the Cross Roads.BushHouse,London,1931.
[123] Graham,Loren R.Scienve,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M].Columbia University Press.1987.
[124]Мамчур,Е.А.Овчинников,Н.Ф.Огурцов,А.П.1997,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН.
[125] B.Hessen.The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s‘Principia’[M].Science at the Cross Roads.Bush House,Aldwych,London.1931.
[126]У.А.Раджабов,Динамикаестественнонаучногознания[M].Изд.Наука. 1982.
[127]Грязнов,Б.С.Садовский,В.Н.Проблемыструктурыиразвитиянауки.Вкн.СтруктураиРазвитиенауки[M].Изд.Наука.1978.
[128]В.С.Степин,Научныереволюциикак?точки?бифуркациивразвитиинаучногознания.Вкн.,В.С.Стёпин,Научныереволюциивдинамикекультуры[M].Минск.1985.
[129]В.С.Степин,1994,Динамиканаучногопознаниякакпроцесссамоорганизация.Вкн[M].Самоорганизацияинаука:опытфикософскогоосмысления.
[130]В.А.Лекторский,Материалистическаядиалектикакакметодологиясовременногоестественнонаучногопознания.Вкн[M].МатериалыIIIВсесоюзногосовещанияпофилософскимвопросамсовременногоестествознания.вып.III.1981.
[131]В.С.Стёпин,АнализисторическогоразвитияфилософиинаукивСССР,Вкн[M].ЛоренР.Грэхэм,Естествознание,философияинаукиочеловеческомповедениивСоветскомСоюзе.1991.
[132]Фролов,И.Т.идр. (ред.) [M].Введениевфилософию.1989.
[133]А.Турсонов.Методэкстраполяцияипринципсоответствия[M].Вкн.Проблемыисториииметодологиинаучногопознания.1974.
[134]С.Р.Микулинский,Очеркиразвитияисторико-научноймысли[M].Наука,1988.
[135]ВернадскийВ.И.ТрудыпоисториинаукивРоссии[M].наука,1988.
[136]С.Р.Микулинский.Очеркиразвитияисторико-научноймысли[M].Наука. 1988.
[137]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии[J].Вопросыфилософии.2004(1)
[138]Илларионов,С.В.Принципограничениявфизикеиегосвязьспринципомсоответствия[J].Вопросыфилософии, 1964(3).
[139]Н.И.Бухарин,Автобиография[J].Природа,1988(9).
[140]АкадемикБухарин[J].Природа,1988(9).
[141]В.Д.Есаков,Н.И.БухариниАкадеиянаук[J].Природа,1988(9).
[142]Н.Н.Моисеев.Вернадскийисовременность[J].Вопросыфилософии.1994(3).
[143]Швырев,В.С.Мойпутьвфилософии[J].Свободнаямысль,2003(3).
[144]ГЕ.Горелик,Тримарксизмавсоветскойфизике30-хгодов[J].Природа,1993.(5).
[145] G.Mayo, Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science[J].The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,Vol.47,1996(2).
[146]В.И.Вернадский.Несколькословоноосфере[OL].http://vernadsky.lib.ru/e-texts/archive/noos.html
[147]МикулинскийСеменРомановичБСЭрубрикон[OL],http;//encycl.yandex.ru/yandsearch.
[148]Гессен[OL].http://www.ihst.ru/projects/sohist/repress/academy/gessen.htm
[149]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL]. http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[150]В.С.Степин,Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция[OL]. 2000.ru.philosophy.kiev.ua/pers/stepin/index.htm
[2] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[3] [俄]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].哲学译丛.1978(2):49.
[1]〔美〕罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].社会科学文献出版社.1988.100—104.
[2] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union.[M]Columbia University Press.1987.1.
[1]董光壁.科学哲学的两种传统[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):15.
[1]弗雷格.他的逻辑和他的哲学——迈克·比尼访谈录[J].世界哲学.2010(2):69—73.
[2] B.Russell.OurKnowledge of the External World. London:Allen and Unwin,1926.42.转引自江怡.分析哲学中的“分析”概念.云南大学学报(社会科学版)2006(2):26—27.
[1] [奥]克拉夫特著.李步楼,陈维杭译.维也纳学派——新实证主义的起源[M].商务印书馆.1998. 31—32.
[2]洪谦.论逻辑经验主义[M].商务印书馆.1999.272.
[3] [美]W.V.奎因.经验主义的两个教条.载洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].商务印书馆.1984.673.
[1] [美]W.V.奎因.经验主义的两个教条.载洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].商务印书馆.1984.694.
[2] [美]W.V.奎因.经验主义的两个教条.载洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].商务印书馆.1984.695.
[3]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].黑龙江人民出版社.2009.176—177.
[1]肖显静.科学实在论的出路与方法论的重建——从科学语言的角度重构科学的真理性[Z].光明网http://www.sina.com.cn 2005年06月09日.
[2]陈波.分析哲学的价值[J].中国社会科学.1997(4).63.
[1] [德] H.赖欣巴哈.科学哲学的兴起[M].商务印书馆.1983.3.
[2] [奥]克拉夫特著.李步楼,陈维杭译.维也纳学派——新实证主义的起源[M].商务印书馆.1998. 30.
[3]转引自[奥]鲁道夫.哈勒著.韩林合译.新实证主义——维也纳学圈哲学史导论[M].商务印书馆.1998. 230.
[1]洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(上卷)[M].商务印书馆. 1982.13—14.
[2]张盾.作为一个话语系统的分析哲学[J].吉林大学社会科学学报.1989(6)89.
[1]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].生活?读书?新知.三联书店.1987.5.
[2] [美]托马斯?库恩.是发现的逻辑还是研究的心理学?[M].伊姆雷?拉卡托斯,艾兰?马斯格雷夫著.周昌忠译.批判与知识的增长.华夏出版社.1987.1.
[3]董光壁.科学哲学的两种传统[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):15.
[4]Мамчур,Е.А.,Овчинников,Н.Ф.,Огурцов,А.П.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.М.:РОССПЭН. 1997, 1.
[5]Мамчур,Е.А.Овчинников.Н.Ф.ОгурцовА.П.Отечественная,философиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].:РОССПЭН. 1997, 1.
[1]Мамчур,Е.А.,Овчинников,Н.Ф.,Огурцов,А.П.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН. 1997, 1.
[2]Мамчур,Е.А.,Овчинников,Н.Ф.,Огурцов,А.П.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.[M].РОССПЭН. 1997, 3. (此处译文引自孙慕天、孙文超的未刊译稿,在此致谢。)
[1]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.[M]Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):5.
[2]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.[M]Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):5.
[3]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.[M]Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):7.
[1]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):7.
[2]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):8.
[1]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии.Вопросыфилософии.2004(1):9.
[1]孟建伟.从科学哲学走向科学文化哲学[J].自然辩证法研究.2003(6):25.
[1]孟建伟.从科学哲学走向科学文化哲学[J].自然辩证法研究.2003(6):25—27.
[2]孟建伟.科学哲学的范式转变——科学文化哲学论纲[J].社会科学战线.2007(1):20—21.
[1] [苏]C.T.麦柳欣.苏联自然科学哲学教程[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1989.2.
[2] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.2-3.
[1]参见苏联科学院现代自然科学哲学问题研究会哲学研究所编《现代自然科学中的哲学思想斗争》,该书是苏联在1975年召开的“现代自然科学中的哲学问题学术讨论会”文集。它搜集了苏联研究自然科学哲学问题的一些头面人物的发言,文集的主题涉及广泛,除上述提到的,还包括科学观、科学方法论的一些问题,以及对西方科学哲学思潮的评价和批判。该书于1983年3月,由黑龙江省自然辩证法研究会下属的苏联自然科学哲学问题研究会译成中文,未公开出版。
[1]孙慕天.论苏联自然科学哲学的历史地位[J].自然辩证法研究.2005(4):103.
[2]刘啸霆.自觉迎接自然辩证法的范式转换[J].自然辩证法研究.2002(1):56.
[3]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.111.
[1] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union.[M] Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[1]刘啸霆.自觉迎接自然辩证法的范式转换[J].自然辩证法研究.2002(1):58.
[2]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):23.
[3]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.476.
[4]孙玉忠.“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”与科学的社会学研究[J].学习与探索.2010(3):118.
[1]王者业,李昆峰.论自然辩证法学科的中国文化特色[J].自然辩证法通讯. 1990(3):71.
[2]参见《人民日报》社论.苏联走向共产主义的巨大步骤[N].人民日报.1958.11.16.
[3]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[Z].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.150.
[4]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[Z].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.152.
[1]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[Z].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.155.
[1]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.381.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.385.
[3]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.380.
[1]参见范岱年.关于我国科学哲学研究的粗略回顾与展望[J].自然辩证法研究.1986(2):15.
[1]安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2003.前言5.
[2][俄]B.梅茹耶夫.俄罗斯并不为盖达尔改革欢呼[N].载独立报.1997.02.13.转引自安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学.中国人民大学出版社.2003.5.
[3]安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社.2003.前言5.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.407.
[2]孙慕天.论苏联自然科学哲学的历史地位[J].自然辩证法研究. 2005(4):99.
[3] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[4] Graham,Loren R. Science,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M]. Columbia University Press.1987.3.
[1]江怡.维也纳学派宣言80周年(上)[J].世界哲学.2009(6).5.
[2]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):21.
[3]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):21.
[4]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):21.
[5]江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学.2009(6):7.
[1]江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学.2009(6):13.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.50.
[3]转引自江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学.2009(6):15.
[4]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学.2008(1):23.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.М.:РОССПЭН,1997,255.
[2]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金.2007(4):202.
[1]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金.2007(4):202.
[2]胡新和.科学哲学在中国——历史、现状与未来[J].湛江师范学院学报.2002(10):7.
[1]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].上海:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.5.
[2] [美]托马斯?库恩.是发现的逻辑还是研究的心理学[M].伊姆雷?拉卡托斯,艾兰?马斯格雷夫.周昌忠译.批判与知识的增长.北京:华夏出版社,1987.1.
[1]顾芳福.苏联对西方科学哲学的研究.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].知识出版社,1982.438.
[2]顾芳福.苏联对西方科学哲学的研究.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].知识出版社,1982.439.
[3]王彦君.俄罗斯科学哲学研究[M].黑龙江人民出版社,2008.57.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги.М.:РОССПЭН,1997,251.
[2] [俄]弗拉基斯拉夫?让诺维奇?凯列.论当代俄罗斯的科学哲学[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2003(4):2
[3]参见任元彪.20世纪中国科学技术哲学简述[J].自然辩证法研究.2002(4):20.
[1]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[M].天津社会科学.2008(1):23.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学.北京:人民出版社[M].1998.380.
[3]胡新和.科学哲学三十年——从历届全国科学哲学学术会议看中国科学哲学的发展.自然辩证法研究[J].2009(10):79.
[1]孙玉忠.“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”与科学的社会学研究.学习与探索[J].2010(3):118.
[2]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[M].天津:天津社会科学出版社.2008(1):21.
[1]胡新和.科学哲学三十年——从历届全国科学哲学学术会议看中国科学哲学的发展.自然辩证法研究[J].2009(10):79.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社.1998.396-397.
[1]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].上海:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.5.
[2]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.140.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,252.
[2] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,1984.77.
[1] [苏]Б.С.伊利扎罗夫,С.С.伊利扎罗夫.论科学知识发展和积累的再建模式[N].自然辩证法(报刊复印资料)1984(7):74.
[2] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.77.
[3]转引自[俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.77.
[4] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.78.
[5] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.78.
[1]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.164-165.
[2] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学理论的形成.明斯克.1976.转引自Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.79.
[1] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.79.
[2] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.79—80.
[3] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学理论的形成.明斯克.1976.56.转引自Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.80.
[4] [俄]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.81.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.138.
[2] B.Hessen.The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s‘Principia’[M].Science at the Cross Roads. Bush House,Aldwych,London.1931.152.
[3] B.Hessen.The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s‘Principia’[M].Science at the Cross Roads. Bush House, Aldwych, London.1931.154.
[1]龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.166.
[2]参见龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.166.
[3]参见龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.168.
[4]转引自龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史资料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社.1989.167.
[1]С.Р.Микулинский.Очеркиразвитияисторико-научноймысли.М.Наука.1988:57-58.转引自张明雯.俄罗斯和苏联科学哲学与科学史研究[M].黑龙江人民出版社.2009.90.
[2]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.138.
[3]张明雯,孙忠艳.米库林斯基与科学编史学[J].自然辩证法研究.2005(4):108.
[4]万小龙.预见与创新:中国科学哲学家的任务.自然辩证法通讯[J]. 2000(3): 19.
[1]成素梅.逻辑经验主义的科学理论观及其影响[J].社会科学.2009(1):126.
[2]曹秋华.证伪主义的科学进步标准[J].自然辩证法研究.1987(4)
[3]李醒民.库恩科学革命观的新进展[J].思想战线.1991(3)
[1]舒炜光,邱仁宗.当代西方科学哲学述评[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.8.
[2]舒炜光,邱仁宗.当代西方科学哲学述评[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.11.
[3]韩来平,邢润川.科学价值论转向过程中的几个疑难——兼评“科学→价值”的科学进步模式.自然辩证法研究[J].2004(6):26.
[1]李醒民.科学革命的实质与科学进步的图象[J].科学学研究.1986(4)
[2]曹秋华.意义与科学进步.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):19.
[1]顾速.科学进步的合理性.科学技术与辩证法[J].1990(2)
[2]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):1.
[3]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):2.
[4]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):3.
[5]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):4.
[1]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析.自然辩证法研究[J].1995(5):5.
[2]孙玉忠.论科学发展中的中间范式.自然辩证法通讯[J].2001(5).
[3]陈其荣.论科学合理性与科学进步.自然辩证法研究[J].2002(2).
[4]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов.Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[М].РОССПЭН,1997,254—255.
[1]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL].http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[2]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,257—258.
[3]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL].http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,259—260.
[2]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性与认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社. 1984.87.
[3]В.С.Степин,Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция[OL].2000.ru.philosophy.kiev. ua/pers/stepin/index.htm.
[4]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,258.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,261—265.
[1]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):2.
[2]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):2.
[3]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):2.
[1]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):3.
[2] [俄]В.А.卡尔普宁,Б.М.苏哈诺夫,В.И.沙罗格拉茨基.颜泽贤等译.自然科学和技术科学的方法论基础[Z].华南师院哲学社会科学研究所内部资料.1982.72.
[1] [俄]В.А.卡尔普宁,Б.М.苏哈诺夫,В.И.沙罗格拉茨基.颜泽贤等译.自然科学和技术科学的方法论基础[Z].华南师院哲学社会科学研究所内部资料.1982.77.
[2]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):4.
[3]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):4—5.
[4]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):6.
[5]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构.自然辩证法通讯[J].1987(1):6.
[1]В.С.Степин,Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция[OL].2000.ru.philosophy.kiev. ua/pers/stepin/index.htm.
[2]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,293.
[1] [俄]B.C.斯捷宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.384.
[2]Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция,M,2000.3.
[3] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.385.
[4] [俄]B. C.斯焦宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.385.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.132.
[2] B.C.斯捷宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.387.
[1] B.C.斯捷宾.科学革命和知识增长的非线性特点.载И.Т.弗罗洛夫.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].孙慕天等译.哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.388—389.
[1]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,305.
[2]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL].http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[3]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,303.
[4]Е.А.Мамчур,Н.Ф.Овчинников,А.П.Огурцов,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН,1997,304.
[1]吴国盛.追溯近代科学之思想源流[J].自然辩证法研究.1995(12):70.
[2]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):16.
[3]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):16.
[4]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):17.
[1]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):20.
[2]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界.2008(2):21.
[3]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界. 2008(2):26.
[1]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):4.
[2] [俄]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].1978(2):50.
[3] [俄]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].1978(2):49.
[1]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.111.
[2]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯,1983(6):5
[1]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯.1983(6):5
[1]任元彪.中国科学技术哲学发展史研究路径探讨[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(4):67.
[2]任元彪.中国科学技术哲学发展史研究路径探讨[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(4):71.
[3]孙正聿.中国高校哲学社会科学发展报告哲学卷[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2008:58.
[4]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[M].天津:天津社会科学出版社,2008(1):24.
[1]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金,2007(4):202.
[2]顾芳福.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].北京:知识出版社,1982.451.
[1] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.99.
[2] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.100—104.
[3] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.8.
[1] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.5—6.
[2]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.50-51.
[1] [俄]C.P.米库林斯基.科学学[Z].科学与哲学(研究资料)1981:(6-7)20.
[2] [俄]C.P.米库林斯基.科学学[Z].科学与哲学(研究资料)1981:(6-7)21-22.
[1]刘猷桓.自然辩证法传统与科学哲学发展[J].吉林师范大学学报(人文社会科学版).2005(2):20.
[2]刘猷桓.自然辩证法的逻辑——从《自然辩证法》原著到《自然辩证法原理》[J].自然辩证法研究.2009(10):9.
[3]刘猷桓.自然辩证法的逻辑——从《自然辩证法》原著到《自然辩证法原理》[J].自然辩证法研究.2009(10):9.
[1]孙慕天.科学哲学在苏联的兴起[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987:(1)11.
[2] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.改革:哲学的意义和人的使命[J].哲学译丛,1990(2):40.
[3] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.改革:哲学的意义和人的使命[J].哲学译丛,1990(2):40.
[1]张功耀.我国科学技术哲学的学科转型及其新的学术使命[M].载中国自然辩证法研究会,中国科学院研究生院编.自然辩证法走进新世纪.哈尔滨:哈尔滨出版社,2002.82.
[2]胡新和.科学哲学在中国——历史、现状与未来[J].湛江师范学院学报,2002(10):7.
[1]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.68.
[2]孙慕天.但开风气不为师——论自然辩证法的社会责任[J].自然辫证法研究.2003(12):46.
[1]安启念.俄罗斯向何处去——苏联解体后俄罗斯哲学[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[2]陈之骅,吴恩远,马龙闪.苏联兴亡史纲[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2004.
[3]龚育之,柳树滋主编.历史的足迹——苏联自然科学领域哲学争论的历史料[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
[4]顾芳福.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].北京:知识出版社,1982.
[5]洪谦.论逻辑经验主义[M].上海:商务印书馆,1999.
[6]洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(上卷)[M].上海:商务印书馆,1982.
[7]洪谦主编.逻辑经验主义(下卷)[M].上海:商务印书馆,1984.
[8]纪树立编译.科学知识进化论——波普尔科学哲学选集[M].上海:生活?读书?新知三联书店,1987.
[9]刘大椿.科学哲学[M].北京:人民出版社,1998.
[10]刘猷桓.走进恩格斯:<自然辩证法>探索[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2005.
[11]沈志华.一个大国的崛起与崩溃——苏联历史专题研究(1917-1991)(上、中、下册)[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2009.
[12]孙慕天.边缘上的求索[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.
[13]孙慕天.跋涉的理性[M].北京:知识出版社,2006.
[14]孙乃纪,赵玲主编.科学技术原理论——自然辩证法基础[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,1995.
[15]孙玉忠.科学进步及其中间范式[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.
[16]孙正聿.中国高校哲学社会科学发展报告哲学卷[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2008.
[17]舒炜光,邱仁宗.当代西方科学哲学述评[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[18]王彦君.俄罗斯科学哲学研究[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2008.
[19]王跃新.创新思维学[M].长春:吉林人民出版社,2010.
[20]王跃新,赵玲等编著.现代科技革命与马克思主义[M].长春:吉林大学出版社,2004.
[21]徐凤林.俄罗斯宗教哲学[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2006.
[22]张明雯.俄罗斯和苏联科学哲学与科学史研究[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,2009.
[23]郑祥福.范?弗拉森与后现代科学哲学[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[24]中国自然辩证法研究会.国外自然辩证法和科学哲学研究[M].北京:知识出版社,1982.
[25]中国自然辩证法研究会,中国科学院研究生院编.自然辩证法走进新世纪[M].哈尔滨:哈尔滨出版社,2002.
[26] [奥]克拉夫特.李步楼,陈维杭译.维也纳学派——新实证主义的起源[M].上海:商务印书馆,1998.
[27] [奥]鲁道夫.哈勒.韩林合译.新实证主义——维也纳学圈哲学史导论[M].上海:商务印书馆,1998.
[28] [丹]赫尔奇?克拉夫.任定成译.科学史学导论[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[29] [德]H.赖欣巴哈.科学哲学的兴起[M].上海:商务印书馆,1983.
[30] [德]卡尔?马克思,弗里德里希·冯·恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集[M].第4卷.北京:人民出版社,1972.
[31] [德]卡尔?马克思.资本论.马克思恩格斯全集[M].第23卷.北京:人民出版社,1972.
[32] [德]斯泰格缪勒.当代哲学主流[M].上海:商务印书馆,2000.
[33] [俄]Н.О.洛斯基.贾泽林译.俄国哲学史[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1999.
[34] [俄]尼?别尔嘉耶夫.雷永生,邱守娟译.俄罗斯思想[M].上海:三联书店,1996.
[35] [法]奥古斯特?孔德.实证哲学教程[M].参见《西方名著提要》.北京:中国青年出版社,1957.
[36] [美]伯纳德?科恩.科学中的革命[M].上海:商务印书馆,1999.
[37] [美]理查德?罗蒂.真理与进步[M].北京:华夏出版社,2003.
[38] [美]罗伯特?金?默顿.范岱年等译.十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会[M].上海:商务印书馆,2000.
[39] [美]罗伯特.S.科恩著.陈荷清,范岱年译.当代哲学思潮的比较研究——辩证唯物论与卡尔纳普的逻辑经验论[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,1988.
[40] [美]斯蒂芬·F·科恩.布哈林政治传记[M].上海:东方出版社,1988.
[41] [美]托马斯·库恩.必要的张力[M].福州:福建人民出版社,1981.
[42] [美]托马斯·库恩.科学革命的结构[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2003.
[43] [美]托马斯·库恩.吴国盛译.科学史,科学思想史指南[M].成都:四川教育出版社,1997.
[44] [美]托马斯·库恩.范岱年,纪树立译.必要的张力——科学的传统和变革论文选[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[45] [美]伊姆雷·拉卡托斯,艾兰·马斯格雷夫著.周昌忠译.批判与知识的增长[M].北京:华夏出版社.1987.
[46] [苏]Р.巴兰金.孙佩林译.维尔纳茨基——生平·思想·业绩[M].北京:科学出版社,1987.
[47] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.孙慕天等译.辩证世界观和现代自然科学方法论[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1990.
[48] [苏]Д.И.希罗卡诺夫,М.А.斯列姆涅夫.现代科学的发展规律性欲认识方法[M].上海:复旦大学出版社.1984.
[49] [苏]麦柳欣.孙慕天等译.苏联自然科学哲学教程[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江人民出版社,1989.
[50] [苏]苏联科学院现代自然科学哲学问题研究会哲学研究所.现代自然科学中的哲学思想斗争[M].哈尔滨:黑龙江省自然辩证法研究会译.1983.
[51] [英]J.D.贝尔纳.陈体芳译.科学的社会功能[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003.
[52] [英]洛伦.R.格雷厄姆.叶式辉、黄一勤译.俄罗斯和苏联科学简史[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2000.
[53]曹秋华.意义与科学进步[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987(1).
[54]曹秋华.证伪主义的科学进步标准[J].自然辩证法研究,1987(4).
[55]陈波.分析哲学的价值[J].中国社会科学,1997(4).
[56]陈其荣.论科学合理性与科学进步[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(2).
[57]成素梅.逻辑经验主义的科学理论观及其影响[J].社会科学,2009(1).
[58]董光壁.科学哲学的两种传统[J].自然辩证法通讯,1983(6).
[59]范岱年.关于我国科学哲学研究的粗略回顾与展望[J].自然辩证法研究,1986(2).
[60]顾速.科学进步的合理性[J].科学技术与辩证法,1990(2).
[61]郭贵春,程瑞.科学哲学在中国的现状与发展[J].中国科学基金,2007(4).
[62]韩来平,邢润川.科学价值论转向过程中的几个疑难——兼评“科学→价值”的科学进步模式[J].自然辩证法研究,2004(6).
[63]贺来.辩证法研究的两种出发点[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2011(1).
[64]胡新和.科学哲学在中国——历史、现状与未来[J].湛江师范学院学报,2002(10).
[65]胡新和.科学哲学三十年——从历届全国科学哲学学术会议看中国科学哲学的发展[J].自然辩证法研究,2009(10).
[66]江怡.维也纳学派宣言80周年(上) [J].世界哲学,2009(6).
[67]江怡.维也纳学派在中国的命运[J].世界哲学,2009(6).
[68]李海峰,刘猷桓.“自然”何以“辩证法”——《自然辩证法》文本学研究[J].科学技术与辩证法,2007(3).
[69]李海峰.科学认识主体和科学认识客体的发生[J].科学技术与辩证法,2002(4).
[70]李为.概念组织进化:图尔明对科学理性问题的解决[J].自然辩证法研究,2007(8).
[71]李为.图尔明20世纪50年代初对逻辑经验主义的批评[J].云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007(1).
[72]李醒民.科学的形而上学基础:科学预设[J].学术界,2008(2).
[73]李醒民.科学革命的实质与科学进步的图象[J].科学学研究,1986(4).
[74]李醒民.库恩科学革命观的新进展[J].思想战线,1991(3).
[75]李兴权.关于“维尔纳茨基-米库林斯基”学派的研究[J].科学学研究,1986(2).
[76]刘啸霆.自觉迎接自然辩证法的范式转换[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(1).
[77]刘猷桓.自然辩证法的逻辑——从《自然辩证法》原著到《自然辩证法原理》[J].自然辩证法研究,2009(10).
[78]刘猷桓.自然辩证法传统与科学哲学发展[J].吉林师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005(2).
[79]孟建伟.科学进步模式辨析[J].自然辩证法研究,1995(5).
[80]孟建伟.从科学哲学走向科学文化哲学[J].自然辩证法研究,2003(6).
[81]孟建伟.科学哲学的范式转变——科学文化哲学论纲[J].社会科学战线,2007(1).
[82]任元彪.中国科学技术哲学发展史研究路径探讨[J].自然辩证法通讯,2002(4).
[83]任元彪.20世纪中国科学技术哲学简述[J].自然辩证法研究,2002(4).
[84]舒炜光.科学哲学辨析[J].自然辩证法通讯,1983(6).
[85]孙利天.哲学为什么没有被遗忘[J].天津社会科学,2005(2).
[86]孙利天.中国哲学的未来[J].社会科学辑刊,2010(3).
[87]孙慕天.论苏联自然科学哲学的历史地位[J].自然辩证法研究,2005(4).
[88]孙慕天.科学哲学在苏联的兴起[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987(1).
[89]孙慕天.但开风气不为师——论自然辩证法的社会责任[J].自然辫证法研究,2003(12).
[90]孙慕天.第三种知识论纲[J].自然辩证法通讯,1996(1).
[91]孙玉忠.论科学发展中的中间范式[J].自然辩证法通讯,2001(5).
[92]孙玉忠.“科热伏尼科夫佯谬”与科学的社会学研究[J].学习与探索,2010(3).
[93]孙正聿.伟大的实践与实践的哲学——改革开放以来的中国马克思主义哲学[J].社会科学战线,2008(5).
[94]孙正聿.“世界3”与文化的前提批判[J].学习与探索,2009(5).
[95]万小龙.预见与创新:中国科学哲学家的任务[J].自然辩证法通讯,2000(3).
[96]王者业,李昆峰.论自然辩证法学科的中国文化特色[J].自然辩证法通讯,1990(3).
[97]王振林,王跃新.现代西方哲学的真理观及其启示[J].长白学刊,1997(1).
[98]吴国盛.追溯近代科学之思想源流[J].自然辩证法研究,1995(12).
[99]吴国盛.中国科学技术哲学三十年[J].天津社会科学,2008(1).
[100]徐奉臻,王跃新.基于新型现代化的工具主义价值之省思[J].思想战线,2008(5).
[101]张盾.作为一个话语系统的分析哲学[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,1989(6).
[102]张明雯,孙忠艳.米库林斯基与科学编史学[J].自然辩证法研究, 2005(4).
[103]赵红洲,蒋国华.格森事件与科学学起源[J].科学学研究,1988,6(1).
[104]赵红洲,蒋国华.格森事件与科学学起源(续) [J].科学学研究,1988,6(2).
[105]赵玲.论自然观变革中的时间观问题[J].科学技术与辩证法,2001(4).
[106]赵玲.论现代自组织生态自然观的实质[J].社会科学战线,2001(4).
[107]赵玲.论自然观变革中的因果性和目的性[J].自然辩证法研究,2001(7).
[108]赵玲,王妍.构建和谐社会的基础:人与自然和谐[J].吉林大学社会科学学报,2007(2).
[109]周昌忠.试论科学知识系统的逻辑结构[J].自然辩证法通讯,1987(1).
[110] [苏]Б.С.伊利扎罗夫,С.С.伊利扎罗夫.论科学知识发展和积累的再建模式[J].自然辩证法,1984(7).
[111] [苏]C.P.米库林斯基.科学学[J].科学与哲学,1981(6).
[112] [苏]И.Т.弗罗洛夫.改革:哲学的意义和人的使命[J].哲学译丛,1990(2).
[113] [苏]弗拉基斯拉夫·让诺维奇·凯列.论当代俄罗斯的科学哲学[J].山西大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2003(4).
[114] [德]弗雷格.他的逻辑和他的哲学——迈克·比尼访谈录[J].世界哲学,2010(2).
[115] [德]L.赫尔舍尔,新编年史:一种史学理论的纲要[J].世界哲学,2003(4).
[116] [美]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(上)[J].哲学译丛,1978(2).
[117] [美]L.R.格雷厄姆.苏联国内的科学和哲学(下)[J].哲学译丛,1978(3).
[118] [苏]苏联共产党第二十三次代表大会主要文件汇编[C].上海:社会.读书.新知三联书店.1978.
[119]《人民日报》社论.苏联走向共产主义的巨大步骤[N].人民日报,1958.11.16.
[120] [苏]В.А.卡尔普宁,Б.М.苏哈诺夫,В.И.沙罗格拉茨基.颜泽贤等译.自然科学和技术科学的方法论基础[Z].广州:华南师院哲学社会科学研究所内部资料.1982.
[121]肖显静.科学实在论的出路与方法论的重建——从科学语言的角度重构科学的真理性[OL].http://www.sina. com.cn ,2005年06月09日.
[122] N.I.Bukharin:Theory and Practice from the Standpoint of Dialectical Materialism[M].Science at the Cross Roads.BushHouse,London,1931.
[123] Graham,Loren R.Scienve,Philosophy,and human behavior in the Soviet Union[M].Columbia University Press.1987.
[124]Мамчур,Е.А.Овчинников,Н.Ф.Огурцов,А.П.1997,Отечественнаяфилософиянауки:предварительныеитоги[M].РОССПЭН.
[125] B.Hessen.The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s‘Principia’[M].Science at the Cross Roads.Bush House,Aldwych,London.1931.
[126]У.А.Раджабов,Динамикаестественнонаучногознания[M].Изд.Наука. 1982.
[127]Грязнов,Б.С.Садовский,В.Н.Проблемыструктурыиразвитиянауки.Вкн.СтруктураиРазвитиенауки[M].Изд.Наука.1978.
[128]В.С.Степин,Научныереволюциикак?точки?бифуркациивразвитиинаучногознания.Вкн.,В.С.Стёпин,Научныереволюциивдинамикекультуры[M].Минск.1985.
[129]В.С.Степин,1994,Динамиканаучногопознаниякакпроцесссамоорганизация.Вкн[M].Самоорганизацияинаука:опытфикософскогоосмысления.
[130]В.А.Лекторский,Материалистическаядиалектикакакметодологиясовременногоестественнонаучногопознания.Вкн[M].МатериалыIIIВсесоюзногосовещанияпофилософскимвопросамсовременногоестествознания.вып.III.1981.
[131]В.С.Стёпин,АнализисторическогоразвитияфилософиинаукивСССР,Вкн[M].ЛоренР.Грэхэм,Естествознание,философияинаукиочеловеческомповедениивСоветскомСоюзе.1991.
[132]Фролов,И.Т.идр. (ред.) [M].Введениевфилософию.1989.
[133]А.Турсонов.Методэкстраполяцияипринципсоответствия[M].Вкн.Проблемыисториииметодологиинаучногопознания.1974.
[134]С.Р.Микулинский,Очеркиразвитияисторико-научноймысли[M].Наука,1988.
[135]ВернадскийВ.И.ТрудыпоисториинаукивРоссии[M].наука,1988.
[136]С.Р.Микулинский.Очеркиразвитияисторико-научноймысли[M].Наука. 1988.
[137]В.С.СтепинУистоковсовременнойфилософии.наукии[J].Вопросыфилософии.2004(1)
[138]Илларионов,С.В.Принципограничениявфизикеиегосвязьспринципомсоответствия[J].Вопросыфилософии, 1964(3).
[139]Н.И.Бухарин,Автобиография[J].Природа,1988(9).
[140]АкадемикБухарин[J].Природа,1988(9).
[141]В.Д.Есаков,Н.И.БухариниАкадеиянаук[J].Природа,1988(9).
[142]Н.Н.Моисеев.Вернадскийисовременность[J].Вопросыфилософии.1994(3).
[143]Швырев,В.С.Мойпутьвфилософии[J].Свободнаямысль,2003(3).
[144]ГЕ.Горелик,Тримарксизмавсоветскойфизике30-хгодов[J].Природа,1993.(5).
[145] G.Mayo, Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science[J].The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science,Vol.47,1996(2).
[146]В.И.Вернадский.Несколькословоноосфере[OL].http://vernadsky.lib.ru/e-texts/archive/noos.html
[147]МикулинскийСеменРомановичБСЭрубрикон[OL],http;//encycl.yandex.ru/yandsearch.
[148]Гессен[OL].http://www.ihst.ru/projects/sohist/repress/academy/gessen.htm
[149]В.С.Степин,В.Г.Горохов.Философиянаукиитехники[OL]. http://polbu.ru/stepin_sciencephilo/
[150]В.С.Степин,Теоретическкоезнаниеструктура,историческаязволюция[OL]. 2000.ru.philosophy.kiev.ua/pers/stepin/index.htm