19.J.-J. Yuann,“Between Foundation and Convention:Carnap's Evolution between Schlick and Neurath in the Vienna Circle”,《台灣政治大學哲學學報》第十期(July,2003),台北:台灣政治大學哲學系,頁35-74(NSC 88-2411-H-029-002 -)。
28.J.-J. Yuann,“A Naturalistic Approach of Scientific Methodology:A Comparative Study of O. Neurath and P. Feyerabend” in Naturalized Epistemology and Philosophy of Science(Rodopi Philosophical Studies Volume 7),Chienkuo Mi and Ruey-lin Chen(eds.)(Amsterdam/New York:Rodopi,2007),pp. 171-196(June 2007).
29.J.-J. Yuann,“I. Lakatos,A Methodologist of Research Programmes or A Philosopher of Political Practices?”,《台灣政治大學哲學學報》,第19期(July.,2007),台北,頁101 -140(NSC 91-2411-H-029-002)。
30.J.-J. Yuann,“Sola Scriptura and Sola Experientia:A Methodological Analogy between Religion and Science”,《哲學與文化》(Universitas),第409輯第35卷第6期(June,2008):29 -55。
31.J.-J. Yuann,“A Review of Historical Ontology”,Taiwanese Journal for Studies of Science,Technology and Medicine,7(Oct. 2008):13-22.
32.J.-J. Yuann,“Jean Ladrière on Science and Theology and Their Mediation by Philosophy”,《哲學與文化》(Universitas),第409輯第35卷第12期(December,2008):89-114
32.J.-J. Yuann,“The View of Person and the Meaning of Life”,《澄清醫護管理雜誌》(Chen Ching Medical Journal),第六卷第4期(October,2010):4-13.
33.J.-J. Yuann,“The Extension of Vienna Circle Protocol Sentences Debates:A Comparative Study of W. Quine and P. Feyerabend” Logic,Methodology and Philosophy of Science,Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress,Cai Shushan,Zeng Guoping & Wang Ning eds.(London:King's College Publications,2010),pp 117-122.
34.J.-J. Yuann,“The Philosophical Significance of Deliberative Democracy in East Asian STS Studies”,Proceedings of 1st International Conference:Applied Ethics and Applied Philosophy in East Asia,edited by Tsuyoshi MATSUDA and Hiroyuki INAOKA,(Kobe:Kobe University,Japan,2010),pp. 1-10.
13. J.-J. Yuann,20-28,August,1999,“Methodological Agreements between Mach and Feyerabend”,The 11th International Congress of Logic,Methodology,and Philosophy of Science(organized by the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science),Cracow,Poland.
16. 苑舉正,二〇〇〇年6月9日,”Between Foundation and Convention:Neurath's Influences on Carnap”,“科學與科學方法:第四屆人文社會科學哲學基礎研討會”,台北,台灣政治大學哲學系。
17. J.-J. Yuann,6-9,July,2000,“Between Foundation and Convention:Neurath's Influences on Carnap”,The Third International History of Philosophy of Science Congress,Vienna,Austria.(NSC 88-2411-H -029-002)
20. Yuann,Jeu-Jenq,21-24,Aug.,2001,'The Theory-Ladeness of Observation:An Examination of Wittgenstein's Influences on the Development of Philosophy of Science' The Philosophical Encounter Circle Program 2001,Hong Kong.(NSC89 -2411-H-029-007)
31. J.-J. Yuann,24-27,June,2004,“I. Lakatos,A Methodologist of Research Programmes or A Philosopher of Political Practices?”,HOPOS 2004,San Francisco,University of San Francisco.(NSC91- 2411-H-029-002)
35. J.-J. Yuann,31 May- 3 June,2006,“A Naturalistic Approach of Scientific Methodology”. International Conference on “Naturalized Epistemology and Philosophy of Science” 2006,Taipei,Soochow University.
36. J.-J. Yuann,14-18,June,2006,“A Naturalistic Approach of Scientific Methodology:A Comparative Study between O. Neurath and P. Feyerabend”,HOPOS 2006,Paris,Ēcole Normale Supérieur.
37. J.-J. Yuann,24-25,November,2006,“Feyerabend's Empirical Foundation of an Attempted Theory of Truths” The 3rd Conference on Experience and Truth,Taipei:Soochow University.
39. J.-J. Yuann,27-28,April,2007,“The Negative Role of Empirical Stimulus in Theory Change:WV Quine and P. Feyerabend” The Conference on Logic,Methodology and Philosophy of Science,Taipei:National Taiwan University.
40. J.-J. Yuann,16-17,June,2007,“A Realistic Interpretation of Culture” International Conference on Philosophy of Culture and Practice,Soochow University(Waishuanghsi Campus),Taipei,Taiwan.
41. J.-J. Yuann,20-23,June,2007,“Two Sorts of Anti-justificationism:O. Neurath and WV Quine” International Conference on the Early Analytic Philosophy,Soochow University(Waishuanghsi Campus),Taipei,Taiwan .
42. J.-J. Yuann,23,June,2007,“A Tiny Difference between Scientific Realism and Empirical Constructivism:A Comparative Study between E. McMullin and B. Van Fraassen” The Conference on Realism and Anti-Realism,Soochow University(Waishuanghsi Campus),Taipei,Taiwan.
43. J.-J. Yuann,9-15,August,2007,“The Negative Role of Empirical Stimulus in Theory Change:Quine and Feyerabend” The 13th International Congress of Logic,Methodology and Philosophy of Science,Beijing(China).
44. J.-J. Yuann,2-8,September,2007,“A Realistic interpretation of Culture,” The Summer University in Chilhac(Auvergne),France:Politics and Culture,Intercultural Relationship,l'Université de Paris 8(Saint Denis),France.
47. J.-J. Yuann,13-15,July,2008,“The Philosophical Significance of East Asian STS Studies,” Technoscience:Historical,Sociological and Philosophical Perspectives,Greece(Syros),The Hermoupolis Seminars Series “Science and Culture ”,National Hellenic Research Foundation.
48. J.-J. Yuann,27-29,July,2008,“A Realistic Interpretation of Culture” in the International Conference ”Philosophy Emerging from Culture”.
49. J.-J. Yuann,November 8-9,2008,“Wittgenstein and Popper on the Idea of Negation” in The International Wittgenstein Conference in Taiwan(Taipei:Department of Philosophy,National Taiwan University,Taiwan).
51.J.-J. Yuann,June 24-28,2009,“Being Major and Being Minor:The Challenge of the Enlightenment Project” in Biopolitics,Ethics,and Subjectivation Conference & Summer University(Hsinchu:National Chao Tung University,Taiwan ).
52.J.-J. Yuann,12-16,July,2009,“Rousseau's Anthropocentricism versus Evolution” in International Society for History,Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology(ISHPSSB) Conference 2009(Brisbane,Australia:University of Queensland).
53.苑舉正,二〇〇九年10月23-24日,“The View of Person and the Meaning of Life:A Review of Owen Flanagan's The Really Hard Problem”,“2009生命教育國際學術研討會”,台北,國家圖書館國際會議廳(台灣大學生命教育研發育成中心主辦)。
55.J.-J. Yuann,22 June 2010,“Feyerabend's relation to Mach” in Institute of Philosophy at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin on the Conference “Feyerabend's Formative Years” under the auspices of the German Research Council(DFG).
J.-J. Yuann,26-27 July 2010,“Whose STS? Which Rationality? The Philosophical Significance of East Asian STS Studies” in The 1st International Conference:Applied Ethics and Applied Philosophy in East Asia,Kobe University.(Symposium in preparation)
56.苑舉正,二〇一〇年8月11-14日,“Methodological Agreements between Mach and Feyerabend”,“第六屆全國分析哲學會議”,太原,山西大學(中國現代外國哲學學會分析哲學專業委員會、教育部人文社科重點研究基地山西大學科學技術哲學研究中心和哲學社會學學院共同主辦)。
58.J.-J. Yuann,25-26 October 2010,“Anthhropocentrism and Anthropomorphism in Evolutionary Ethics” in The International Conference on Perception and Self-consciousness,Department of Philosophy,National Taiwan University.
59.J.-J. Yuann,17-19 February 2011,“For or Against Scientific Realism:E. McMullin,B. van Fraassen and J. Ladyman” in The 3rd GCOE International Symposium “Weaving Science Web beyond Particle Matter Hierarchy” ,Tohuku University,Sendai,Japan.
61.J.-J. Yuann,21-22 May 2011,“The Limits of Scientific(Materialistic) Worldview” in The 2nd International Conference on Applied Ethics and Applied Philosophy in East Asia,,Department of Philosophy,Dalian University of Technology.
62.J.-J. Yuann,19-26 July 2011,“The Futility of Prescribing What Scientists Should Do:Supplementing van Fraassen's Empirical Stance with Scientific Practices” in The 14th International Conference of Logic,Methodology and Philosophy of Science,Nancy,France by LMPS.
在探討這些議題的過程中,苑舉正教授逐漸發現,科學哲學發展的歷史是一個重要的研究方向,尤其是有關科學本質的方法論問題。在科學哲學的發展中,最重要的特色,即為具規範性的理論面臨科學實踐的挑戰。這個特色,同時兼具理論與實踐兩個層面上的意義。在理論上,強調普遍方法的一元理論逐漸為多元理論所取代。在實踐上,提倡科學理性規則的規範性要求,轉為以歷史論述為主的描述性分析。這兩層意義使得原先在“邏輯實證論”中,因為經驗所予(the given of experience)確認的觀察語言之意義,在“後實證論”的發展中(主要是在孔恩與費耶阿本(P. Feyerabend)的歷史詮釋中),成為經由理論負載下形成的意義。雖然,這個以“理論負載”為主的發展,往往被視為一種“相對主義”立場,但這不但導致誤解,也忽視科學哲學強調多元發展與歷史論述的結果。苑舉正教授的研究成果之一,即為此方面的解析。
除了上述研究成果外,苑舉正教授還將“科學方法論”中所牽涉的議題,套用至教育與宗教等不同領域中。在教育方面,由於方法論的內容,對於日常生活具有訴求的緣故,所以應當以何種方式教育學生的觀念,成為方法論研究中一個重要的議題。科學與宗教之間的關係,則是另外一個例子。就一般印象而言,科學與宗教兩者之間,差距極大。然而,在就經驗內容本質而言,它們都會因為各自形成經驗範圍的緣故,同樣面對“理性理解的限制”(the limit of rational understanding)的問題。如何突破這些“限制”成為科學與宗教都必須面對的問題,也促使這兩學門能夠在同一種概念架構下獲得分析的可能。