Wei Wang

This article probes into grammatical conformity in Mandarin by examining meiyou, a multifunctional negative form, in question-answer sequences. Using a conversation analysis approach, it discovers that, as a conforming answer to polar questions, meiyou acquiesces to all the terms and constraints of the question and maximizes the progressivity of the sequence. As a non-conforming response to polar questions, it mitigates the disagreement by avoiding a pointed syntactic negation. Meiyou can also respond to Q-word questions, problematizing the inference incorporated in the question. This study not only contributes to the cross-linguistic research on negative particles in talk-in-interaction but also reveals that grammatical conformity is a crucial dimension in Mandarin response design, providing further confirmation of the link between grammar, action, and sequence organization.

Scientific explanation, laws of nature and causation are crucial and frontier issues in the philosophy of science. This book studies the complex relationship between the three concepts, aiming to achieve a holistic synthesis about explanation–laws–causation. By reviewing Hempel's Scientific Explanation models and Salmon's three conceptions – the epistemic, modal and ontic conception – the book suggests that laws are essential to explanation and our understanding of laws will help solve the problems of the latter. Concerning the nature of laws, this book tackles both the problems of regularity approach and necessitarian approach. It also proposes that the ontological order of explanation should be from events (or processes) to causation, then to regularity (laws), and finally to science system, but the epistemological order should be from science system to laws to explanation and causation. In addition, this book examines the legitimacy of Ceteris Paribus laws, the connection between explanation and reduction, the relation between explanation and interpretation, and some other issues closely related to explanation–laws–causation. This book will attract scholars and students of philosophy of science, philosophy of nature, cognitive science, etc.

The epistemological version of structural realism, proposed by Cao Tianyu, has great influence in the philosophy of science. Syntheses has published a special volume discussing the topic. Cao criticizes anti-realism, as well as the epistemic and ontic versions of structural realism. From the concepts of structure, ontology, and construction, he analyzes the objectivity of scientific theories as having five aspects: construction, historicity, holism, revision, and revolution. This paper systematically analyzes and comments on Cao's structural realism. The author agrees with his criticism of the under-determination thesis, is neutral to his argument against ontological discontinuity, and questions his universal language argument. /// 曹天予提出的结构实在论知识论版本在科学哲学界有很大影响，并引发了《综 合》期刊专刊讨论。他既批评反实在论的观点，也对结构实在论的知识版本与本体 版本有所批判。他从结构、本体、建构这三个概念出发，论证了科学理论的客观性 体现为建构性、历史性、整体性、修正性、革命性。本文对曹天予的结构实在论进 行了系统的梳理与分析，赞同他对"不充分决定"论旨的批评，对他批评"本体论 不连续性"持中立态度，但对他的"普遍语法论证"有所存疑。.

Since the publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolution , relativism, resulting from the concepts of paradigm and paradigm shift, becomes one of the central problems in the philosophy of science. The author of this dissertation agrees with Thomas Kuhn in his criticism of the Logical Positivism, but denies that relativism arrives as a direct consequence. In this dissertation, the author tries to tackle the problem by analyzing some underlying basic concepts, e.g. paradigm, language and rationality. Firstly, he points out that a hard-core model of paradigm, as understood by I. Lakatos, is not totally appropriate for an all-rounded understanding of a paradigm. Rather, among the elements certain "family resemblance" comes to the surface, they are therefore regarded as belonging to the same paradigm. A paradigm is not a hindrance to but an exemplar for our learning. And a paradigm shift needs not result in a total switch over, it could be a revolution with inheritance. Secondly, the incommesurability of languages does not mean the breakdown of communication between different linguistic communities. True bilinguals can achieve cross-paradigm understanding. In addition, due to the creative activities within a language, the problem of untranslatability could be solved. Finally, rationality, rather than assuming a hierarchical structure, could be taken as a reticulated model. As a result, various disagreements at the axiological level could be rationally resolved. ;The author also tackles in passing some issues concerning language and rationality in the Chinese tradition of science, and compares this tradition with that of the western

The book is a translation of the second edition of a much-used and research-based Chinese textbook. As a succinct and issue-based introduction to the Western philosophy of science, the book brings eight focal issues in the field to the fore and augments each topic by incorporating Chinese perspectives. Followed by an overview of the historical framework and logical underpinnings of the philosophy of science, the book thoroughly discusses eight issues in the discipline: the criteria of cognitive meaning, induction and confirmation, scientific explanation, theories of scientific growth, the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, scientific realism and empiricism; the philosophy of scientific experimentation, science and value. Not confined to Western mainstream discourse in this field, the book also introduces voices of Chinese philosophers of note and adopts a stance that productively combines logical empiricism and Kuhnianism, both of which tend to be covered in less detail by many English language textbooks. In the final chapter the author offers a prognosis regarding the future of the discipline based on recent trends. This book will be of value to students who study philosophy of science and hope to gain a better understanding of science and technology.