“科學戰爭”中的迷信、騙局、誤解與爭辯：評Gross & Levitt《高級迷信》與Sokal & Bricmont《知識的騙局》中譯本

Superstitions, Impostures, Misunderstandings and Debates in the Science Wars: A Review of the Chinese Translation of Gross & Levitt's Higher Superstition and Sokal & Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense

10.29816/TARQSS.200203.0004

陳信行(Hsin-Hsing Chen)

科學與技術研究 ； 社會建構論 ； 相對主義 ； 科學哲學 ； 後現代主義 ； 後殖民主義 ； science and technology studies ； social constructivism ； relativism ； philosophy of science ； postmodernism ； post-colonialism

台灣社會研究季刊

45期（2002 / 03 / 01）

173 - 207

繁體中文

《高級迷信》與《知識的騙局》兩書的中譯完成介紹所謂的「科學戰爭」辯論到台灣所需的一半工作。這場熱烈的論戰表面上是關於科學與技術研究領域中的社會建構取徑的價值以及方法論／知識論相對主義的問題。它反映了冷戰之後、西雅圖事件之前美國學界高度焦慮的知識氛圍。然而，「科學戰爭」的影響超出了原來的戰場，在一些議題上引起了有意義的辯論，如：科學民主化的問題、美國左翼的戰略問題、以及後殖民主義把科學與「跨文化的真理」的概念批判為西方宰制的意識型態的問題。在兩本書中，《高級迷信》一再地使用稻草人攻擊而使得其論述品質低落；而雖然《知識的騙局》則是一個謹慎的防禦，集中在批評後現代人文學者誤用自然科學概念。Sokal & Bricmont批評科學的社會研究之中有科學主義的傾向，本文從科學研究中圍繞著「強綱領」及其他社會建構派研究方案的辯論來討論，並發現這個批評具有一定的價值。

The Chinese translation of Gross & Levitt's Higher Superstition and Sokal & Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense amounts to half of the necessary work for introducing the so-called ”Science Wars” to Taiwan. This highly flaming debate, ostensibly on the validity of the social-constructivist approaches in the field of Science and Technology Studies and the problems of methodological/ epistemological relativism, actually reflects the deeply anxious intellectual milieu in the post-Cold War, pre-Seattle US academe. The ramifications of the ”Science Wars,” however, exceed the original field of battle, and raise meaningful debates on issues such as democratization of science, the strategies for the Left in the US, and the post-colonial critiques of science and the idea of trans-cultural truth as an ideology of Western domination. Between the two books, Higher Superstition is found to be of questionable intellectual quality, especially for its repeated use of straw-man attacks, while Fashionable Nonsense a more cautious defense against the misuse of natural-scientific language by the post-modern humanists despite the flamboyant image of one of the authors. Sokal & Bricmont's critique of scientificism in the social studies of science is discussed and found warranted in light of the history of debates on the ”Strong Programme” and other social-constructivist research schemes in science studies.

1. (2001).Beyond Science Wars: The Missing Discourse about Science and Society.Albany:SUNY Press.
2. (1996).The Science Wars.Durham:Duke University Press.
3. (1998).A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science.New York:Oxford University Press.
4. (1988).Science, Hegemony, and Violence.Delhi:Oxford University Press.
5. (2001).The One Culture: A Conversation about Science.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
6. (1996).Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology.Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
7. Albert, M.(1996).Science, Post Modernism, and the Left: Lessons from Alan Sokal's Parody in Social Text.Z Magazine,July/ August
8. Ashman, K. M., Barringer, P.(2000).After the Science Wars: Science and the Study of Science.London:Routledge.
9. Barnes, B.(1981).On the 'Hows' and 'Whys' of Cultural Change (Response to Woolgar).Social Studies of Science,11
10. Bloor, D.(1991).Knowledge and Social Imagery.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
11. Bricmont, J., Sokal, A.(2000).Reply to Turnbull, Krips, Dusek and Fuller.Metascience,9(3)
12. Chadha, G.(1998).Sokal's Hoax: A Backlash to Science Criticism.Economic and Political Weekly
13. Chadha, G.(1997).Sokal's Hoax and Tensions in Scientific Left.Economic and Political Weekly
14. Chubin, D., Restivo, S.(1983).Science Observed.Beverly Hills:Sage.
15. Collins, H.(1983).Science Observed.Beverly Hills:Sage.
16. Epstein, B.(1996).The Postmodernism Debate: more on Sokal's Parody.Z Magazine,October
17. Fuller, S.(1998).Whose Style? Whose Substance? Sokal vs. Latour at the LSE, A Report on the 2 July 1998 Debate.Technoscience,Fall
18. Fuller, S.(2001).Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
19. Gould, S. J.(2000).Deconstructing the 'Science Wars' by Reconstructing an Old Mold.Science,287
20. Guillory, J.(2002).The Sokal Affair and the History of Criticism.Critical Inquiry,28
21. Hacking, I.(1999).The social construction of what?.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
22. Haraway, D.(1989).Primate Visions.London:Routledge.
23. Kleinman, D. L.(1998).Beyond the Science Wars: Contemplating the Democratization of Science.Politics and Life Sciences,17(2)
24. Krips, H.(2000).Review of Intellectual Impostures.Metascience,9(3)
25. Lane, N.(1996).Science and Progress: Lofty of Level-Headed.
26. Latour, B., Woolgar, S.(1986).Laboratory Life: the Social Construction of Scientific Facts.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
27. Levins, R.(1996).Science Wars.Durham:Duke University Press.
28. Levins, R., Lewontin, R.(1985).The Dialectical Biologist.Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
29. Levitt, N., Gross, P.(1994).The Perils of Democratization of Science.The Chronicle of Higher Education,October
30. Longino, H.(1990).Science as Social Knowledge.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
31. MacKenzie, D.(1981).Interests, Positivism and History.Social Studies of Science,11
32. MacKenzie, D.(1978).Statistical Theory and Social Interests: A Case-Study.Social Studies of Science,8
33. Nanda, M.(1997).Defense of History: Marxism and the Postmodern Agenda.New York:Monthly Review.
34. Nanda, M.(2001).Breaking the Spell of Dharma: Case for Indian Enlightenment.Political Economic Weekly,July
35. Nanda, M.(1997).The Science Wars in India.Dissent,Winter
36. Restivo, S.(1993).Science, Society and Values: Toward a Sociology of Objectivity.Lehigh:Lehigh University Press.
37. Rorty, R.(1999).Phony Science Wars.The Atlantic Monthly,November
38. Sardar, Z.(2001).Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars: Postmodern Encounters.Cambridge, UK:Icon Books.
39. Shapin, S., Schaffer, S.(1985).Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and Experimental Life.Princeton:Princeton University Press.
40. Shiva, V.(1999).The Two Fascisms.The Ecologist,29(3)
41. Shiva, V.(1989).Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development in India.London:Zed.
42. Sokal, A.(1998).Truth, Reason, Objectivity, and the Left.Economic and Political Weekly
43. Sokal, A.(1998).A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science.New York:Oxford University Press.
44. Sokal, A.(2000).Setting the Record Straight: A Response to Gita Chadha.Economic and Political Weekly
45. Trachtman, L. E., Perrucci, R.(2000).Science under Siege: Interest Groups and the Science Wars.Lanham, MD:Rowman ＆ Littlefield.
46. Winner, L.(1993).On Openning the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology.Science, Technology, and Human Values,18(3)
47. Woolgar, S.(1981).Interests and Explanation in the Social Studies of Science.Social Studies of Science,11
48. Woolgar, S.(1981).Critique and Criticism: Two Readings of Ethnomethodology.Social Studies of Science,11
49. Wynne, B.(1996).Risk, Environment, and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology.London:Sage.
50. 王秀雲 Wang, Hsiu-Yun(1998)。從科學革命到科學戰爭。當代，8
51. 林崇熙 Lin, Chung-His(1998)。從革命到被革命－科學家何以不願科學研究來研究科學。當代，8
52. 陳瑞麟 Chen, Ruey-Lin、 薛清江(2001)。高級迷信。台北:新新聞。
53. 傅大為 Fu, Dai-Wie(1998)。「兩種文化」的迷惑與終結：從Science Studies觀點看「索可事件」與「科學戰爭」。當代，8
54. 蔡佩君(2001)。知識的騙局。台北:時報。

1. 陳瑞麟(2005)。科學的戰爭與和平—「科學如何運作」的建構論與實在論之爭。歐美研究，35(1)，141-223。
2. 陳瑞麟(2007)。科學哲學在「科技與社會」中的角色與挑戰。臺灣社會研究季刊，68，227-266。
3. 陳政亮(2008)。科學、技術與社會文化：對科學信念的反思。科技、醫療與社會，6，145-200。
4. 傅大為(2013)。定位與多重越界：回首重看STS與科哲。科技、醫療與社會，16，49-102。
5. 繆航、黃之棟(2014)。追尋「小」孔恩傳統：愛丁堡學派的孔恩理解及其在華文世界的進展。科技、醫療與社會，18，335-392。
6. (2003)。從行動者網路理論來看電腦輔助教室教學：以「性別與媒體」課程的教室實踐為例。教學科技與媒體，66，35-47。