基礎物理定律作為當代科學體系之基石，一直以來都引導著我們對於自然運作的理解。然而，外部世界充滿的雜亂與無序，以及實作中產生的諸多與理論不符之情況，不斷挑戰著這些基礎定律企圖基於制高點來闡明萬物之信念。科學定律真的能夠涵蓋一切嗎？帶著疑問，本論文的第一章先從兩種不同之科學哲學本體論觀點進行比較研究，進而對其中視定律為規律性之論者提出質疑；在本論文的第二章，藉由熱力學定律從兩方面對科學實作進行考量：首先它指出理論與實作之差異，進而揭示實作如何在理論之中扮演一定的角色，且理論也對實作有一定程度的影響，而不是如規律論者所宣稱的基礎定律支配著現實的一切。接著，南施·卡特萊特之起因結構模型與規律論者之涵蓋律模型都被運用來說明科學實作中所強調的實際效率最大化過程。這項運用的結果證實了涵蓋律模型並不能夠很可靠的描述科學之實作，其後果就是規律論者之宣稱就被視為並不可靠。這項運用的結果同時也彰顯出起因結構模型所建議的科學哲學方法論能於科學實作中被用於進行相互對話之可能。當卡特萊特的儲能概念於實際應用之中被闡明時，理論效率提升未必代表實際經濟性之提高，突顯了理論與實際操作之間的複雜關係；最後，在本論文的第三章，對理論與實作實為互補之關係進一步總結，揭示熱力學作為一門實用性很強之科學，其實作中並非如規律論者所想，由其定律支配整個實作之運行，並都能夠進行很好的科學預測與說明，而是在實作中不斷檢證，進而充實理論之發展。有關某項存有物的理論之所以在穩定的因果結構中能夠有效，則端賴於存有物能夠在結構中穩定地展現它的儲能。

Fundamental laws of physics have long served as the cornerstones of contemporary science, guiding our understanding of the workings of nature. However, the complexities and disorderliness inherent in the external world, coupled with numerous instances of discrepancies between theory and practice, constantly challenge the belief that these fundamental laws can be used to explain everything from a vantage point. Can scientific laws truly encompass everything? With this question in mind, the first chapter of the thesis compares two different philosophical ontological perspectives on science and then challenges those so-called regularists who view laws as regularities.
In the second chapter of the thesis, through the examination of the laws of thermodynamics, this chapter further considers scientific practice from two aspects: It first presents the disparities between theory and practice, and then reveals how practice plays a role in theory and how theory has its impact on practice, thereby repudiates the regularist assertion that fundamental laws govern all aspects of reality.Subsequently, Nancy Cartwright's causal structure model and the covering law model are both applied to explain the process of maximizing practical efficiency which is emphasized in scientific practice. The results of the application attest that the covering law model cannot provide a reliable description of the scientific practice, and the consequence is that the claims made by regularists are thus regarded as being unreliable. The results of the application also highlight the possibility of the methodology of the philosophy of science, hinted in the causal structure model, can be used to engage in mutual dialogue within scientific practice. When Cartwright's concept of capacity is elucidated in practical application, it demonstrates that improvements in theoretical efficiency do not necessarily entail an increase in practical cost-effectiveness, thereby elucidating the complex relationship between theory and practical operation.
Finally, in the third chapter of the thesis, it summarizes the complementary relationship between theory and practice, and reveals that, in contrast to what envisioned by the regularists, thermodynamics, as a highly practical science, is not solely governed by its laws in practice and does not always provide accurate scientific predictions and explanations but rather continually undergoes verification and thus enriches the development of theory. What makes a theory of an entity work in a stable causal structure depends on whether the entity can reliably manifest its capacity in the structure.

謝辭......i
摘要......ii
Abstract......iii
目錄......iv
表目錄......v
圖目錄......vi
第一章 兩種不同科學方法論之究明......1
第一節 定律與科學說明之間的關係......1
一、 科學定律所處位置為何？......1
二、 涵蓋律模型及因果律......4
三、 定律為何失真？......9
四、 對規律論者之質疑......13
第二節 不同於傳統範式之解析......16
一、 本性與儲能之宣稱......16
二、 起因結構模型及定律機器......21
三、 抽象與具體之關係......30
四、 其他情況不變是否適用於熱力學？......34
五、 關於儲能及起因結構相關之回應......37
第二章 熱力學實作與科學哲學探討......40
第一節 熱力學效率之不同計算方式......40
一、 熱力學第一定律之效率探析......40
二、 第二定律效率計算方式能夠替代第一定律效率嗎？......50
三、 熱力學理論VS熱力學實作......64
第二節 科學哲學方法論於熱力學實作之運用......71
一、 熱力學實作是如何使得效率最大化？......71
二、 兩種科學哲學方法論於實作中例示......77
三、 實作VS理論：實際經濟性與能效性之關係探討......88
第三章 實作與理論之哲思......91
第一節 從哲學後設角度對熱力學之探討......91
一、 熱力學實作之哲學意涵......91
二、 理論與實作之關係究竟為何？......95
三、 定律是否存在邊界？——以熵增定律為例......98
四、 對一些可能質疑之總體回應......107
第二節 結論......115
參考文獻......119

1.陳思廷(Szu-Ting Chen) (2009/10)。<遊走於理論與實情之間：一項經濟模型操作的案例研究>《科技醫療與社會》9期。
2.陳思廷(Szu-Ting Chen) (2010/06)。<以起因結構為基礎的經濟理論構作之分析：從經濟學家的實作面向看>《政治與社會哲學評論》33期。
3.陳思廷(Szu-Ting Chen)（2011/04）。<因果關係的哲學探究之不同面貌：一個簡要概覽>《科技醫療與社會》12期。
4.陳思廷（2016/11）。<安置心靈於世界之中：在脈絡之中的科學實作及其對其他實作之意涵>《臺大文史哲學報》85期。
5.鄭志忠(2006/03)。<康德自然的合目的性原則的實用意義>《揭諦》10期。
6.Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science, New Series, 177, 393–396.
7.Ahmadi, G. R., & Toghraie, D. (2016). Energy and exergy analysis of Montazeri Steam Power Plant in Iran. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 56, 454–463.
8.Bacon, F. (2000). Francis Bacon: The New Organon. (L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of physics Lie. New York: Oxford University Press USA.
10.Cartwright, N. (1999). The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge University Press.
11.Cartwright, N., Cat, J., Fleck, L., & Uebel, T. E. (eds.) (1996). Otto Neurath: Philosophy Between Science and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.Chen, Szu-Ting (2014). Representation as a Process of Model-Building: A Case from Economics. Korean Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol.17(1):113-153.
13.Chen, Ruey-Lin (2023). Are There Experimental Arguments Independent of Theories? In Defense of a Hackingian Approach to the Scientific Realism Debate. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 36(4), 279–297.
14.Claus, B., & Richard, E. S. (2019). Fundamentals of Thermodynamics. University of Michigan.
15.Clausius, R. (1862). CCXIII. On the determination of the Energy and Entropy of a body. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 4(24), 1-16.
16.Clausius, R. (1879). The Mechanical Theory of Heat. Macmillan, London.
17.Goold, J., Huber, M., Riera, A., Skrzypczyk, P., & Rio, L. D. (2016). The role of quantum information in thermodynamics—a topical review. Journal of Physics A, Mathematical and Theoretical, 49(14), 50.
18.Hempel, C. G, (1966). Philosophy of Natural Sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.Hartmann, S., Bovens, L., & Hoefer, C. (eds.) (2008). Nancy Cartwright’s Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.
20.Kanti N. M., Barman, N., & Simlandi, S. (2021). Emission control exploring the energy and exergy analysis for turbines of a 500 MW coal-based conventional power plant. Materials Today: Proceedings.
21.MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195 (2), 697-720.
22.Mei, Fei & Zhang, Jiatang & Lu, Jixiang & Lu, Jinjun & Jiang, Yuhan & Gu, Jiaqi & Yu, Kun & Gan, Lei, (2021). Stochastic optimal operation model for a distributed integrated energy system based on multiple-scenario simulations. Energy, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
23.Psillos, S. (2002). Causation and Explanation. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
24.Psillos, S. (2007). Philosophy of Science A–Z. Edinburgh University Press.
25.Robertson, K. (2021). The demons haunting thermodynamics. Physics Today 1 November 2021,74 (11), 44-50
26.Wang, Yongli & Huang, Feifei & Tao, Siyi & Ma, Yang & Ma, Yuze & Liu, Lin & Dong, Fugui, (2022). Multi-objective planning of regional integrated energy system aiming at exergy efficiency and economy. Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 306(PB).
27.Wright, T. P. (1936). Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes. Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 3(4), 122–128.