邏輯實證論、行為主義及後行為主義：經驗性政治研究的理論基礎

Logical Positivism, Behavioralism, and Post-Behavioralism: A Theoretical Foundation of Empirical Political Study

10.6350/JSSP.200212.0465

郭秋永(Chiu-Yeoung Kuo)

政治學方法論 ； 政治理論 ； 行為主義 ； 後行為主義 ； political methodology ； political theory ； behavioralism ； post-behavioralism

人文及社會科學集刊

14卷4期（2002 / 12 / 01）

465 - 514

繁體中文

自二十世紀以降，政治研究領域上經常出現一些風靡一時的成對「主義」。這些前仆後繼的成對「主義」，是否意味「後浪推前浪，前浪毀在沙灘上」，還是意指「新瓶裝舊酒」呢？就經驗性的政治研究而言，在這些各領風騷的成對「主義」中，最引人矚目而值得一再深省的，莫過於行為主義與後行為主義之間的替換了。 某些政治學者指出，五、六十年代如日中天的行為主義，已隨著邏輯實證論的式微而消逝，代之而起的，乃是嶄新的後行為主義。然而，另外一些政治學者則甚不以為然。可是，儘管正、反雙方在爭論時都曾間接地訴諸邏輯實證論，但「一直沒有政治學者直接進行此一解析工作」，徒令行為主義、後行為主義、及邏輯實證論之間的理論關連的斷言，淪為人云亦云的漫談。 筆者不揣譾漏，願就此一基礎課題，進行直接的解析工作。本文的剖析，將從維也納學派、明尼蘇達學派、行為主義、後行為主義等四種基本主張，逐一分別進行，希望能夠指出其中潛具的一些延續性見解。

Begining in the 20(superscript th) century, the field of political study has gone through occasional upheavals during which competing 'isms' vie for supremacy. The proponents of any new view must, of course, argue that their program is superior. Is that just putting new wine in old bottles? For empirical political study, the issue of post-behavioralism being substituted for behavioralism has received much attention. Some historians of political science tell us that behavioralism, which has its epistemological roots in logical positivism, has ended in a stalemate. The death of logical positivism entails the death of behavioralism. The idea of continuities in empirical political study around a shared credo has been rejected. According to these writers, we are now in a post-behavioral age, condemned to sit at separate tables. But they did not directly come to grips with the question of exactly how the claims of logical positivism related to behavioralism. What I propose in this article is a view based on a search of the literature from Vienna School, Minnesota School, and behavioralism, to post-behavioralism, demonstrating that there is indeed some continuity between the four isms.

1. 郭秋永 Kuo, Chiu-Yeoung(2001)。權力與因果：方法論上的解析 Power and Causation: A Methodological Analysis。台灣政治學刊 Taiwan Political Science Review，5
   連結：
2. Almond, G. A.(1990).A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in Political Science.London:Sage Publication.
3. Almond, Gabriel(1996).A New Handbook of Political Science.New York:Oxford University Pres.
4. Ayer, Alfred(1946).Language, Truth, and Logic.London:Victor Gollance.
5. Ayer, Alfred(1992).The Philosophy of A. J. Ayer.Illinois:Open Court.
6. Ball, Terence(1993).Discipline and History: Political Science in the United States.Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press.
7. Bowen, Elinor, Balch, George(1981).The Handbook of Political Behavior, Vol. 5.New York and London:Plenum Press.
8. Braybrooke, David, Rosenberg, Alexander(1972).Getting the War News Straight: The Actual Situation in the Philosophy of Science.The American Political Science Review,66
9. Brecht, Arnold(1959).Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth-Century Political Thought.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
10. Bridgman, Percy(1954).The Logic of Modern Physics.New York:Macmillan.
11. Carnap, Rudolf(1959).Logical Positivism.Westport:Greenwood Press.
12. Carnap, Rudolf(1949).Readings in Philosophical Analysis.New York:Appleton-Century.
13. Cribb, Alan(1991).Values and Comparative Politics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science.Aldershot:Avebury.
14. Dahl, R. A.(1963).Modern political analysis.Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:Prentice-Hall, Inc..
15. Dahl, R. A.(1947).The Science of Public Administration: Three Problems.Public Administration Review,7(1)
16. Dahl, Robert(1958).Political Theory: Truth and Consequences.World Politics,11
17. Dahl, Robert(1961).The Behavioural Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest.American Political Science Review,55
18. Dryzek, John, Leonard, Stephen(1995).Regime and Discipline: Democracy and Development of Political Science.Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press.
19. Easton, David(1965).A Framework for Political Analysis.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall Company.
20. Easton, David(1967).Contemporary Political Analysis.New York:The Free Press.
21. Easton, David(1991).The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Survey.London and New York:Routledge.
22. Easton, David(1971).The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science.New York:The Free Press.
23. Eulau, Heinz(1967).Contemporary Political Analysis.New York:The Free Press.
24. Eulau, Heinz(1963).The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics.New York:Random House.
25. Farr, James(1995).Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions.New York:Cambridge University Press.
26. Glaser, Daryl(1995).Theory and Methods in Political Science.New York:St. Martin's.
27. Gunnell, John(1983).Political Science: The State of the Discipline.Washington, D. C.:APSA.
28. Hare, Richard(1990).The Language of Morals.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
29. Hempel, Carl(1965).Aspects of Scientific Explanation.New York:The Free Press.
30. Hempel, Carl(1966).Philosophy of Natural Science.N. J.:Prentice-Hall.
31. Hempel, Carl(2000).Carl Hempel: Selected Philosophical Essays.New York:Cambridge University Press.
32. Hempel, Carl(1970).Foundations of Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Vol. II.Chicago:The University of Chicago.
33. Isaak, A. C.(1985).Scope and Method of Political Science: An Introduction to the Methodology of Political Inquiry.Illinois:The Dorsey Press.
34. Jones, Terrence(1984).Conducting Political Research.New York:Harper and Row.
35. Lowi, Theodore(1985).Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884-1984.Albany:State University of New York Press.
36. Magee, Bryan(1985).Popper.London:Fontana Press.
37. Marsh, David, Furlong, Paul(2002).Theory and Methods in Political Science.New York:Palgrave.
38. McGaw, Dickinson, Watson, George(1976).Political and Social Inquiry.N. J.:John Wiley and Sons, Inc..
39. Meehan, Eugene(1965).The Theory and Methods of political Analysis.Illinois:The Dorsey Press.
40. Miller, Eugene(1972).Positivism, Historicism, and Political Inquiry.The American Political Science Review,66
41. Miller, Eugene(1972).Rejoinder to 'Comments' by David Braybrooke and Alexander Rosenberg, Richard Rudner, and Martin Landau.The American Political Science Review,66
42. Moon, Donald(1975).Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 1. Political Science: Scope and Theory.MA:Addison-Wesley.
43. Morrice, David(1996).Philosophy, Science, and Ideology in Political Thought.London:Macmillan.
44. Nagel, Ernest(1961).The Structure of Science.New York:Harcourt, Brace and World.
45. Neurath, Otto(1959).Logical Positivism.Westport:Greenwood Press.
46. Oppenheim, Felix(1968).Moral Principles in Political Philosophy.New York:Random House.
47. Plant, Raymond(1991).Modern Political Thought.MA:Basil Blackwell.
48. Popper, Karl(1969).Conjectures and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
49. Popper, Karl(1972).The Logic of Scientific Discovery.London:Hutchinson.
50. Ricci, David(1984).The Tragedy of Political Science: Politics, Scholarship, and Democracy.New Haven:Yale University Press.
51. Richter, Melvin(1980).Political Theory and Political Education.NJ:Princeton University Press.
52. Rudner, Richard(1972).Comment: On Evolving Standard Views in Philosophy of Science.The American Political Science Review,66
53. Rudner, Richard(1966).Philosophy of Social Science.N. J.:Prentice-Hall.
54. Sanders, David(1995).Theory and Methods in Political Science.New York:St. Martin's.
55. Sanders, David(2002).Theory and Methods in Political Science.New York:Palgrave.
56. Seidelman, Raymond, Harpham, Edward J.(1985).Disenchanted Realists: Political Science and the American Crisis, 1884-1984.Albany:State University of New York Press.
57. Smith, B., Johnson, K., Paulsen, D., Shocket, F.(1976).Political Research Methods: Foundations and Techniques.Boston:Houghton Mifflin Co..
58. Somit, Albert, Tanenhaus, Joseph(1964).American Political Science: A Profile of a Discipline.New York:Atherton Press.
59. Somit, Albert, Tanenhaus, Joseph(1982).The Development of Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism.New York:Irvington Publishers.
60. Stoker, Gerry(1995).Theory and Methods in Political Science.New York:St. Martin's Press.
61. Stoker, Gerry, Marsh, David(2002).Theory and Methods in Political Science.New York:Palgrave.
62. Wahlke, John(1979).Pre-behavioralism in Political Science.The American Political Science Review,73
63. Waldo, Dwight(1975).Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 1, Political Science: Scope and Theory.MA:Addison-Wesley.
64. Zolo, Danilo(1995).Science, Politics, and Social Practice.MA:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
65. 易君博(1975)。政治理論與研究方法。台北:三民書局。
66. 洪謙(1990)。邏輯經驗主義論文集。台北:遠流出版公司。
67. 袁頌西 Yuan, Song-Shi(1995)。政治研究與價值問題：方法論上的探討。政治科學論叢 Political Science Review，6
68. 袁頌西 Yuan, Song-Shi(1981)。從行為論到後行為論：政治學中爭論的焦點及其哲學背景。社會科學論叢 Journal of Social Science，29
69. 郭仁孚 Kuo, Ren-Few(1973)。美國政治學研究上的「多元主義」。人與社會（人與社會雙月刊社），1(1)
70. 郭仁孚 Kuo, Ren-Few(1973)。美國政治學研究上的「多元主義」。人與社會（人與社會雙月刊社），1(2)
71. 郭仁孚 Kuo, Ren-Few(1973)。美國政治學研究上的「多元主義」－行為主義，反行為主義及超行為主義（中）。人與社會（人與社會雙月刊社），1(4)
72. 郭仁孚 Kuo, Ren-Few(1973)。美國政治學研究上的行為主義。人與社會（人與社會雙月刊社），1(5)
73. 郭仁孚 Kuo, Ren-Few(1973)。美國政治學研究上的「多元主義」。人與社會（人與社會雙月刊社），1(3)
74. 郭仁孚 Kuo, Ren-Few(1974)。美國政治學研究上的「多元主義」（中）。人與社會（人與社會雙月刊社），1(6)
75. 郭秋永 Kuo, Chiu-Yeoung(1988)。政治學方法論研究專集。台北:台灣商務印書館。
76. 郭秋永 Kuo, Chiu-Yeoung(2001)。當代三大民主理論。台北:聯經出版事業公司。
77. 華力進(1980)。行為主義評介。台北:經世書局。
78. 魏鏞 Wei, Yung(1971)。雲五社會科學大辭典，第三冊，政治學。

1. 郭秋永(2003)。科學哲學中的兩種因果解析。政治與社會哲學評論，4，121-177。
2. 郭秋永(2004)。對峙的權力觀：行爲與結構。政治科學論叢，20，29-78。
3. 郭秋永(2005)。批判實存主義與價值中立原則。人文及社會科學集刊，17(3)，565-614。
4. 郭秋永(2006)。價值中立：實然與應然之間的糾葛。政治與社會哲學評論，19，153-214。
5. 郭秋永(2007)。多元民主理論—公民審議的一個理論基礎。臺灣民主季刊，4(3)，63-107。
6. 郭秋永(2008)。行動的意義：一個社會科學的觀念。政治與社會哲學評論，27，105-165。
7. 郭秋永(2009)。改造運動：政治哲學與政治科學。東吳政治學報，27(3)，1-64。
8. 徐暄景(2010)。從科學哲學思辨政治科學的基礎。育達科大學報，24，145-166。
9. (2006)。我國行政績效評估與公民參與的結構化模式分析。中國行政：政治類，77，27-72。