AI 中文总结
针对难以用实验解决的理论争议，提出理论对抗性合作的五步模板，通过持续澄清等方式超越常规交流，以产生超越现有文献的见解，为哲学、基础科学等领域的争议解决提供一般框架。
AI 中文摘要
在经验科学中，对抗性合作日益突出，相互竞争理论的支持者共同设计能区分它们的实验。但对于难以通过实验解决的理论争议关注较少。我们区分了理论对抗性合作与其经验对应物，并提出了一个五步模板来进行。该程序旨在使争论者超越熟悉的批评 - 回应 - 反驳交流，要求持续澄清、对目标理论进行有监督的强化以及合作发展和完善反对意见。其成功条件是合作产生的见解大幅超越现有文献：要么新的、不明显的论据表明该理论能回应反对意见，要么该理论的倡导者承认需要新的概念资源或修订。该模板是通过对我们自己在物理哲学和基础领域的对抗性合作进行反思并实施而开发的。我们在此将其作为哲学、基础科学以及其他难以通过实验解决争议的探究领域中取得建设性和可发表进展的一般框架提供。
英文摘要
Adversarial collaborations have become increasingly prominent in empirical science, where proponents of competing theories jointly design experiments capable of discriminating between them. Much less attention has been given to theoretical disputes that cannot readily be resolved by experiment. We distinguish theoretical adversarial collaboration from its empirical counterpart and propose a five-step template for conducting it. The procedure is designed to move disputants beyond familiar critique-reply-rejoinder exchanges by requiring sustained clarification, supervised steel-manning of the target theory, and the collaborative development and refinement of objections. Its condition for success is that the collaboration produce insights that substantially exceed the existing literature: either novel, non-obvious arguments show that the theory can meet the objections, or the theory's advocate concedes that new conceptual resources or revisions are required. The template was developed through reflection on, and implemented in, our own adversarial collaboration in philosophy and foundations of physics. We offer it here as a general framework for constructive and publishable progress in philosophy, foundational science, and other areas of inquiry in which disputes cannot readily be resolved by experiment.
Comments6 pages, 1 template
