Is Water H2O? - Hasok Chang

Is Water H2O?

Hasok Chang

出版社

Springer

出版时间

2012-05-23

ISBN

9789400739314

评分

★★★★★
书籍介绍
This book exhibits deep philosophical quandaries and intricacies of the historical development of science lying behind a simple and fundamental item of common sense in modern science, namely the composition of water as H2O. Three main phases of development are critically re-examined, covering the historical period from the 1760s to the 1860s: the Chemical Revolution (through which water first became recognized as a compound, not an element), early electrochemistry (by which water's compound nature was confirmed), and early atomic chemistry (in which water started out as HO and became H2O). In each case, the author concludes that the empirical evidence available at the time was not decisive in settling the central debates, and therefore the consensus that was reached was unjustified, or at least premature. This leads to a significant re-examination of the realism question in the philosophy of science, and a unique new advocacy for pluralism in science. Each chapter contains three layers, allowing readers to follow various parts of the book at their chosen level of depth and detail. The second major study in "complementary science", this book offers a rare combination of philosophy, history and science in a bid to improve scientific knowledge through history and philosophy of science.
用户评论
Chang教授讨论这个问题,引用了H. Putnam,但连S. Kripke的名字都没提(要知道Putnam和Kripke在这个问题一般是Putnam&Kripke的),这是有多不屑...
这次多看了两章历史案例部分。。感觉科学史看起来真的和一般历史学看起来很不一样,还是非常有哲学感。。真是Kuhn说得,用历史做哲学。
所以条条大路通实用主义。(笑。
读前三章,历史和化学都学得不好,不敢评论,只能佩服。读到四和五,感动极了,觉得他literally speaks my mind, but 100 times better justified and supported by evidence (by his amazing scholarship). It’s like falling in love, even his dry sarcasm on the traditional realism/anti-realism debate sounds cute. 觉得,他与analytic philosophy对话像是堂吉诃德站战风车一样,他们不会听的,但他还是循循善诱地说。觉得,天呐,自己什么时候才能做出这样的东西。
精彩绝伦,除了密集的历史细节偶尔读得头皮发麻,读到这些化学家在提出模型和辩护调适时如此光怪陆离的智力尝试(诚心说,往往比社会理论家和哲学家更有想象力)本身就是非常愉悦且开眼的精神享受。虽然存在着语境和资源上的重大差异,但是张夏硕和Andrew Pickering之间在科学史的反事实想象力方面可谓心心相印。不过,本书最后为多元论所做的某些预防性辩护以及政治比附似乎显得薄弱。
科学史上的隐微记录。实际上作者明显有一个野心:目前从物理化学的角度上来说氢气和氧气燃烧生成水这一过程非常复杂,至今还没有特别完整的模型,至今依然处于迷雾之中。那么通过哲学思辨是否可以给现在的研究提供新的角度呢?
收藏