토마스 쿤의 공약불가능성 논제: 의미와 논증
Thomas Kuhn’s Incommensurability: Thesis and Argument
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
쿤은 공약불가능성 논제가 의사소통불가능성 및 비교불가능성을 함축한다는 귀류법적 비판을 오해라고 맞섰다. 본고의 목적은 쿤의 노력이 성공했는지 평가하는 것이다. 이를 위해서 먼저 공약불가능성 논제의 의미를 명료화하고자 했으며, 이 논제를 옹호하는 쿤의 적극적 논증을 재구성하여 제시하였다. 이어서 쿤이 오해라고 주장한, 논제에 대한 귀류법적 비판을 다루었다. 쿤에 따르면, 공약불가능성 논제가 국소적일 때 귀류법적 비판을 논박하도록 도와준다. 공약불가능성이 국소적일 때 의사소통도 이론의 비교도 가능하다. 그러나 국소성이 쿤의 의미전체론과 함께 등장하는 한 이런 희망은 실현되지 않는다. 또한 국소적 공약불가능성은 국소적 공약가능성의 짝이며, 이를 의미 전체론을 함께 감안한다면 공약불가능성은 사라지게 된다. 따라서 국소적 공약불가능성은 쿤을 돕지 못한다. 나아가 그는 번역과 해석을 구분하여 번역불가능성이 의사소통불가능성을 함의하지 않는다고 주장한다. 공약불가능하더라도 해석을 통해서 의사소통이 이루어질 것이기 때문이다. 그러나 이것이 성공한다고 해도 대가가 크다. 쿤의 의미로 이상적 번역은 현실에는 존재하지 않기 때문이다. 그렇다면 일부 주석가의 주장대로 공약불가능성 논제의 의미를 변경시켜서 이런 난관을 벗어날 수 있다. 하지만 쿤은 완전히 새로운 의미의 공약불가능성 논제를 제시한 적이 없다. 더불어 공약불가능성의 종류를 구분하여 부분적으로 논제를 구하는 방법이 있으나, 이 역시 번역에 의존하는 공약불가능성이 근본적인 것이어서 실패하게 된다.
Abstract
Thomas Kuhn’s rebuttal to several reductio ad absordum arguments against his incommensurability thesis(ICT) is main concern here. According to these arguments, ICT entails incomparability, or more generally incommunicability. Kuhn regards these as a severe misunderstanding. He envisages a “local” version of ICT and a distinction between translation and interpretation for proving his contention. Because of the locality, ICT does not imply incomparability and incommunicability. A commensurable part of a theory can be a ground of communicability and comparability between theories. Moreover, interpretation which is very similar to foreign language learning procedure can assure communicability and then comparability which can’t be done by translation. However his holistic meaning theory makes ICT total one. According to the holistic nature of meaning, incommensurability of partial words in a theory spread out to whole theory. Furthermore, local ICT and meaning holism make incommensurable theories commensurable, because local ICT entails local commensurability of some words in each theory and holism ensure commensurability spread out to each whole theory. Also, the distinction between translation and interpretation can't help Kuhn at the end though it seems to protect him from rductio arguments. For his purpose of introducing ICT is explaining communication break down between each theory’s adherents, so if there any way to which can account for communication each other, it can vaporize the initial power of ICT. Breaking out of this predicament, Kuhn would invent a new ICT which did not lean on the concept of translation, but never did this explicitly.
참고문헌 (43)
- 전동진, "공약 불가능성", 현대유럽철학연구, 1(25), pp.1~24 (2011), 한국하이데거학회
- 조인래, "쿤의 주제들: 비판과 대응" (1997), 이화여자대학교 출판부
- 천현득, "토마스 쿤의 개념 이론", 철학, 111(115), pp.111~141 (2013), 한국철학회
- 리처드 로티, "토머스 쿤, 바위, 그리고 물리법칙", 과학사상, pp.173~188 (1997)
- Agassi, Joshep, "Popper and His Popular Critics: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos" (2014), Springer
- ""Presupposition", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(이하 SEP)" (2011)[URL]
- Bird, A, "Princeton" (2000), Princeton University Press
- Bird, A, "Kuhn’s Worng Turning", Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 33, pp.443~463 (2002)
- "Thomas Kuhn" (2011)[URL]
- Chen, X, "Thomas Kuhn's Latest Notion of Incommensurability", Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 28, pp.257~273 (1997)
- Cheon, Hyundeuk, "Meta-incommensurability Revisited", Theoria, 80, pp.243~259 (2014)
- Demir, I, "Incommensurabilities in the Work of Thomas Kuhn", Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 39, pp.133~142 (2008)
- Devitt, M, "Incommensurability and the Priority of Metaphysics", pp.143~157 (2001)
- Hacking, Ian, "Introductory Essay", pp.7~37 (2012)
- Hoyningen-Huene, P, "Kuhn's Conception of Incommensurability", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 21, pp.481~492 (1990)
- Hoyningen-Huene, P, "Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: The Philosophy of Science of Thomas S. Kuhn" (1993), University of Chicago Press
- Hoyningen-Huene, "On Incommensurability", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 27, pp.131~141 (1996)
- Hoyningen-Huene, "Incommensurability and Related Matters" (2001), Kluwer
- Horwich, P, "World changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science" (1993), MIT Press
- Jacobs, Struan, "Polanyi’s Presagement of the Incommensurability Concept", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33, pp.105~120 (2002)
- Kuhn, Thomas, "Reflections on My Critics", pp.371~449 (1970)
- Kuhn, Thomas, "Postscript—1969", Kuhn, 174~210 (2012)
- Kuhn, Thomas, "Rationality and Theory Choice", Journal of Philosophy, 80, pp.563~570 (1983)
- Kuhn, Thomas, "Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability", PSA:Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, pp.669~688 (1997)
- Kuhn, Thomas, "Metaphor in Science", Kuhn, 196~207 (2000)
- Kuhn, Thomas, "The Road since Structure", PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, pp.3~13 (1990)
- Kuhn, Thomas, "Afterwords", pp.311~341
- Kuhn, Thomas, "The Road Since Structure" (2000), University of Chicago Press
- Kuhn, Thomas, "과학혁명의 구조" (2012), 까치
- Lakatos, Imre, "현대과학철학 논쟁:비판과 과학적 지식의성장" (1987), 민음사
- Marcum, James A, "Thomas Kuhn’s Revolution" (2005), Continuum
- Oberheim, Erich, "Incommensurability, Realism and Meta-Incommensurability", Theoria, 12, pp.447~465 (1997)
- Oberheim, Erick, "On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend's Assault on Conceptual Conservativism", Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 36, pp.363~390 (2005)
- "The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories" (2013)[URL]
- Preston, John, "쿤의『과학혁명의 구조』해제" (2011), 서광사
- Sankey, H, "Scientific Realism and the Semantic Incommensurability Thesis", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40, pp.196~202 (2009)
- Sankey, H, "A Curious Disagreement: Response to Hoyningen-Huene and Oberheim", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40, pp.210~212 (2009)
- Sankey, H, "Incommensurability and Related Matters", pp.7~37 (2001), Kluwer
- Sharrock, Wes, "토머스 쿤" (2005), 사이언스 북스
- "Truth Values" (2015)[URL]
- Swan, Liz Stillwaggon, "Just The Argunets: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy" (2011), Wiley-Blackwell
- Wang, X, "A critique of the translational approach to incommensurability", Prima Philosophia, 11(3), pp.293~306 (1998)
- Wang, X, "Taxonomy, truth-value gaps and incommensurability: a reconstruction of Kuhn’s taxonomic interpretation of incommensurability", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33, pp.465~485 (2002)