科學哲學在“科技與社會”中的角色與挑戰

The Role and Challenge of the Philosophy of Science in Science, Technology and Society

10.29816/TARQSS.200712.0005

陳瑞麟(Ruey-Lin Chen)

科學哲學 ； 科技與社會 ； 科學戰爭 ； 事實 ； 價值 ； philosophy of science ； STS ； Science Wars ； fact ； value

台灣社會研究季刊

68期（2007 / 12 / 01）

227 - 266

繁體中文

本文探討科學哲學在「科技與社會」中的角色與挑戰，並企圖回應《台灣社會研究》季刊第四十五期「科技與社會」專輯中雷祥麟的〈劇變中的科技、民主與社會〉與陳信行的〈科學戰爭中的迷信、騙局、誤解與爭辯〉兩篇大作。同期的「編輯室報告」花了近四頁的篇幅介紹兼評論兩文，總結地說他們以相當不同的理由，取消了「科學戰爭」的學院爭議的優先性，不認為於今關於實在論或是建構論熟優這個老問題還有哈好談的。 實在論與建構論之爭，是一個典型的科學哲學爭議。可是，科學哲學爭議不一定發生在哲學界。相反地，它更頻繁地發生在科學內部。「科學戰爭」其實是自然科學家對於「科技與社會」這個新興學科的懷疑與攻擊，從而引發的一場哲學大論戰。為什麼哲學爭議反而更頻繁地發生在科學內部（不同科學之間的相互質疑）？這其實已暗示了哲學爭議對於科學發展的重要性。 在本文中，我將從科學哲學的觀點來論證，哲學爭議在「科技與社會」的常態發展中，扮演著非常重要的角色。由此而帶出本文的核心問題：科學哲學在當代「科技與社會」中的角色與挑戰是什麼？為了回答這個問題，本文將討論「事實與價值的關係」這個古老的哲學議題；再考察科學哲學在當代「科技與社會」的「新社會位置」。

This paper inquiries the role and challenge of the ”Philosophy of Science” (PS) in the face of contemporary STS. It also tries to respond to the macroscopic articles on STS published in a special issue, the ”Technology and Society,” of this journal (TRQSS, No. 45, 2002); they are Sean Hsiang-Lin Lei's ”Techno-science, Democracy and Society in Transformation: Challenges for STS” and Hsin-Hsing Chen's ”Superstitions, Imposture, Misunderstandings and Debates in the Science Wars”. The Editor's Report in No. 45 contributed four pages to introduce and comment them. It concluded that both of the authors had eliminated the priority of Science Wars as an academic debate in terms of very different reasons; it claimed that both authors thought that the debate on realism and constructivism, which is a typical one in PS, had been no longer worthy of discussion. Debates in PS, however, do not always occur within the philosophical academia. On the contrary, they happen more frequently among scientific fields. As a matter of fact, the Science Wars is a large-scale philosophical debate resulted from the attack of natural scientists on STS, a new born scientific discipline. Why do philosophical debates happen more frequently among different fields of science? The fact implies that philosophical debates are essential important to the scientific development. In this paper, I shall argue, from the view of PS, that philosophical debates play a significant role even in the normal development of STS. Second, an old philosophical issue, the relationship between fact and value, will be examined. Lastly, I'll outline a newly social status of PS in Science, Technology and Society.

1. 陳信行(2002)。科學戰爭中的迷信·騙局·誤解與爭辯。台灣社會研究季刊，45，173-207。
   連結：
2. 陳瑞麟(2005)。科學的戰爭與和平－關於「科學如何運作」的實在論與建構論之爭。歐美研究，1(35)，141-223。
   連結：
3. 傅大爲(1999)。融會在玉米田裡的「非男性科學」－關於「女性科學」的哲學論爭與新發展。歐美研究，2(29)，1-40。
   連結：
4. 雷祥麟(2002)。劇變中的科技、民主與社會：STS（科技與社會）的挑戰。台灣社會研究季刊，45，123-171。
   連結：
5. Barnes, B.,Bloor, D.,Henry, J.(1996).Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
6. Betterili, G.,P. Carruthers (eds.),P. K. Smith (eds.)(1996).Theories of Theories of Mind.Cambridge:Cambridge University.
7. Bhaskar, R.(1998).The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of Contemporary Human Sciences.London:Routledge Press.
8. Brown, J. R.(2001).Who Rules in Science?.Cambridge, MA.:Harvard University Press.
9. Collins, H.(eds.),J. A. Labinger (eds.)(2001).The One Culture?.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
10. Collins, H.,Pinch, T.(1998).The Golem: What You Should Know about Science.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
11. Derrida, J.,David B. Allison (Tr.),N. Garver.(1973).Speech and Phenomenology.Evanston:Northwestern University Press.
12. Feyerabend, Paul.,Imre Lakatos (eds.),Alan Musgrave (eds.)(1970).Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13. Kitcher, Philip.(2001).Science, Truth and Democracy.Oxford:Oxford University.
14. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
15. Kuhn, T. S.(1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
16. Kuhn, T. S.,Imre Lakatos (eds.),Alan Musgrave (eds.)(1970).Criticism and the growth of knowledge.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
17. Lakatos, I. (eds.),Musgrave, A. (eds.)(1970).Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
18. Latour, B.(2004).The Politics of Nature.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
19. Laudan, L.(1984).Science and Value-The Aim of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate.Berkeley:University of California at Berkeley.
20. Longino, H.(1990).Science as Social Knowledge.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
21. Lynch, M.,J. A. Labinger (eds.),H. Collins (eds.)(2001).The One Culture?.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
22. Lynch, M.,J. A. Labinger (eds.)H. Collins (eds.)(2001).The One Culture?.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
23. Oudshoorn, N.,Pinch, T.(2005).How Users Matter: The Co-construction of Users and Technology.Cambridge, Mass.:The MIT Press.
24. Pickering, Andrew.(1995).The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
25. Searle, J.(1995).The Construction of Social Reality.New York:The Free Press.
26. Searle, J.(1969).Speech Acts.Cambridge University Press.
27. At the Conference "World and Konwledge"
28. Sokal, A.,Bricmont, J.,Jay A. Labinger (Eds.),Harry Collins (Eds.)(2001).The One Culture?.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
29. Viotti, E.(1993).We Have Never Been Modern.New York:Harvester.
30. Weber, M.,W. G. Runciman (ed.),Eric Mathews. (tr.)(1978).Weber Selections in Translation.Cambridge:Cambridge University.
31. 台社季刊主編(2002)。編輯室報告。台灣社會研究季刊，45，iii-xiii。
32. 陳瑞麟(2004)。科學理論版本的結構與發展。台北:台大出版中心。
33. 陳瑞麟、陳瑞麟著(2003)。科學與世界之間：科學哲學論文集。台北:學富。
34. 傅大爲著(1993)。異時空裹的知識追逐。台北:東大圖書。

1. 陳瑞麟(2011)。牟宗三「科學開出論」的形上學困難─以儒家思想為本的中國文化可以開出現代科學嗎？。國立臺灣大學哲學論評，42，43-78。
2. 陳瑞麟(2019)。一個另類的STS方法論。科技醫療與社會，28，9-53。
3. 王榮麟(2009)。Darwin演化論之後的人觀。生命教育研究，1(2)，25-45。