澳洲麦考瑞论文代写:“非理论的”和“可观察的”

然而，有人批评这种区分，因为它混淆了“非理论的”和“可观察的”，也混淆了“理论的”和“不可观察的”。例如，“基因”这个词是理论性的(所以是T-term)，但它也可以被观察到(所以是O-term)。一个术语是否理论化是一个语义问题，因为它涉及到术语获得其含义的不同方式(从理论还是从观察)。一个术语是否可观察是一个认知问题，因为它涉及到我们如何了解它。工具主义者认为，两者的区别是一样的，只有根据可评估的真实观察来理解事物的意义，我们才能了解事物。所以在上面的例子中，“基因”是一个T-term，因为虽然它是可观察的，但是我们不能仅仅从观察中理解它的意思。上面对现实主义和工具主义的解释给我们提供了理解这个话题的能力。现在，我转到决心命题。从上面的讨论中，我们知道工具主义与实用主义有关，这种观点与科学现实主义相反，后者认为理论或多或少是正确的。这里，我指的是奎因，他说理论可以被所有可能的观测结果低估，牛顿·史密斯认为这是对现实主义的威胁。他说，在他的意义上的现实主义必须被拒绝，如果有在理论确定的情况下。

澳洲麦考瑞论文代写:“非理论的”和“可观察的”

There is some criticism of this distinction, however, as it confuses “non-theoretical” with “observable”, and likewise “theoretical” with “non-observable”. For example, the term “gene” is theoretical (so a T-term) but it can also be observed (so an O-term). Whether a term is theoretical or not is a semantic matter, because it involves the different ways in which the term gets its meaning (from a theory or from an observation).Whether a term is observable or not is an epistemic matter, because it involves how we can come to know about it. Instrumentalists contend that the distinctions are the same, that we can only come to know about something if we can understand its meaning according to truth-evaluable observations. So in the above example, “gene” is a T-term because, although it is observable, we cannot understand its meaning from observation alone.The explanation of realism and instrumentalism above has provided us the capability to understand the topic with much insight. Now, I switch to under determination thesis. From the above discussion we have the knowledge that instrumentalism is related to pragmatism and this point of view is in contrasts with the scientific realism, which states that theories are often more or less true. Here, I refer to Quine, who said that theories can be underdetermined by all possible observations [23], and Newton Smith’s, treat this as a threat to realism. He said, realism in his sense has to be rejected if there can be cases of under determination of theories.