本文將系統性地分析跨領域心智哲學對科學證據的使用。在心智哲學論文中，經常引用科學文章作為經驗證據，而這樣的使用存在著質與量上的差距。本文將引入跨領域哲學中對跨領域類別的分類分析，並發展一套適用於分析跨領域心智哲學的跨領域分類類別，然後，本文會應用共同引用（co-citation）的網絡分析（network analysis）技術，對1950 年至 2021 年期間，發表在哲學期刊的心智哲學文章，進行科學計量 （scientometric）的分析。

本文結構如下：首先，我會簡述跨領域研究的現況，並釐清不同形式的跨領域特徵。透過這些不同形式的跨領域特徵，我將會歸類出不同程度的跨領域標準，並以單篇哲學文章作為單位，對單篇哲學文章如何引用科學文章進行跨領域分類分析。本文將提出一個關於跨領域心智哲學中跨領域特徵的經驗分析。

Philosophers of mind have relied on existing empirical results as the primary method of research in the 21st century (Knobe 2015). However, the literature lacks a systematic empirical description of such interdisciplinary studies. This paper uses quantitative and qualitative research to present an empirical analysis of the interdisciplinary form of philosophy of mind.

First, I used a co-citation network analysis (Chen et al., 2010) to conduct scientometric analysis of philosophy of mind papers published in philosophical journals between 1950 and 2021. Then I marked five clusters and selected the top three cited scientific papers in each cluster. Next, I used a single philosophical paper as a unit. And I categorized the philosophical papers that cite these scientific papers in a cross-disciplinary citation pattern. At last, this paper will present an empirical analysis of the cross-disciplinary feature of the cross-disciplinary philosophy of mind: The cross-disciplinary feature of empirically-informed philosophy of mind is usually not aimed at scientific research at the experimental-practical and methodological aspects, but at the conceptual aspect.

中文摘要 i
英文論文摘要 ii
目錄 iii
圖目錄 iv
表目錄 v
第一節 導論 1
第二節 跨領域哲學 2
第三節 經驗導向心智哲學中的跨領域分類 6
第四節 共同引用網絡分析 9
第五節 跨領域分類分析 18
結論 26
參考文獻 27
附錄 30

Apostel, L. (1972). Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities.
Bruineberg, J., & Rietveld, E. (2014). Self-organization, free energy minimization, and optimal grip on a field of affordances. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 599.
Bubic, A., Von Cramon, D. Y., & Schubotz, R. I. (2010). Prediction, cognition and the brain. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 4, 25.
Carlin, A. p. (2006). On Some Limits of Interdisciplinarity. A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, (5–6), 624–642.
Chen, C. (1999). Visualising semantic spaces and author co-citation networks in digital libraries. Information processing & management, 35(3), 401-420.
Chen, C., Ibekwe‐SanJuan, F., & Hou, J. (2010). The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: A multiple‐perspective cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 61(7), 1386-1409.
Collins, H., Evans, R., Ribeiro, R., & Hall, M. (2006). Experiments with Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37(4), 656–674.
Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38(4), 657–666
Dunning, T. E. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational linguistics, 19(1), 61-74.
Fabry, R. E. (2020). The cerebral, extra-cerebral bodily, and socio-cultural dimensions of enculturated arithmetical cognition. Synthese, 197(9), 3685-3720.
Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?. Nature reviews neuroscience, 11(2), 127-138.
Gallagher, S. (2015). The problem with 3-year-olds. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 22(1-2), 160-182.
Giersch, A., & Mishara, A. L. (2017). Is schizophrenia a disorder of consciousness? Experimental and phenomenological support for anomalous unconscious processing. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1659.
Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2016). Interdisciplinary success without integration. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 6(3), 343-360.
Hoffmann, M. H., Schmidt, J. C., & Nersessian, N. J. (2013). Philosophy of and as interdisciplinarity. Synthese, 190(11), 1857-1975.
Hollebrandse, B., van Hout, A., & Hendriks, P. (2014). Children’s first and second-order false-belief reasoning in a verbal and a low-verbal task. Synthese, 191(3), 321-333.
Huutoniemi, K., Klein, J. Thompson, Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010). Analyzing Interdisciplinarity: Typology and Indicators. Research Policy, 39(1), 79–88.
Kirchhoff, M. D. (2018). Autopoiesis, free energy, and the life–mind continuity thesis. Synthese, 195(6), 2519-2540.
Klein, J. T. (2010). A Taxonomy of Interdisciplinarity. In: R. Frodeman, J. T. Klein, & C. Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity (pp. 15-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Knobe, J. (2015). Philosophers are doing something different now: Quantitative data. Cognition, 135, 36-38.
Mennes, J. (2020). Putting multidisciplinarity (back) on the map. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 10(2), 1-23.
Michael, J. (2017). Putting unicepts to work: a teleosemantic perspective on the infant mindreading puzzle. Synthese, 194(11), 4365-4388.
Onishi, K. H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants understand false beliefs?. science, 308(5719), 255-258.
Osbeck, L. M., & Nersessian, N. j. (2017). Epistemic Identities in Interdisciplinary Science. Perspectives on Science, 25(2), 226–260.
Pacherie, E. (2013). Intentional joint agency: shared intention lite. Synthese, 190(10), 1817-1839.
Papadimitriou, C. H., Raghavan, P., Tamaki, H., & Vempala, S. (2000). Latent semantic indexing: A probabilistic analysis. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 61(2), 217-235.
Pohl, C., Klein, J. T., Hoffmann, S., Mitchell, C., & Fam, D. (2021). Conceptualising transdisciplinary integration as a multidimensional interactive process. Environmental Science & Policy, 118, 18-26.
Salton, G., Wong, A., & Yang, C. S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18(11), 613-620.
Small, H. (1973). Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 24(4), 265-269.
Van Der Steen, W. J. (1993). Towards disciplinary disintegration in biology. Biology and Philosophy, 8(3), 259-275.
Yan, K., Tsai, M. L., & Huang, T. R. (2021). Improving the quality of case-based research in the philosophy of contemporary sciences. Synthese, 198(10), 9591-9610.
Yan, K., Liao, C., & Hricko, J. (2020). How Empirically-Informed is Empirically-Informed Philosophy of Mind? Taiwan Philosophical Association, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan