破解科學主義的魔咒

Disenchantment with Scientism in Psychological Research in Taiwan

10.6254/IPRCS.202106_(55).0003

黃光國(Kwang-Kuo Hwang)

自我殖民 ； 西方中心偏誤 ； 科學主義 ； 科學哲學 ； 覆蓋律模型 ； Chinese indigenous psychology ； epistemology ； mainstream psychology ； philosophy of science ； theoretical model

本土心理學研究

55期（2021 / 06 / 01）

101 - 141

繁體中文

本文以回顧華人社會中的道德研究作為切入點，說明：非西方國家如果使用西方主流心理學的典範，從事跨文化比較研究，將不自覺地陷入所謂西方中心主義的偏誤中，如果反覆使用此種研究策略，將使非西方國家陷入「自我殖民」的困境而難以自拔。與之相反，如果採用筆者主張的知識論策略分析自身的文化傳統（Hwang, 2019），則非西方國家的心理學者可以用「含攝自身文化的理論」作為「普遍定律」，並據此設計恰當的研究工具（先行條件）。根據Hempel的「覆蓋律模型」（Hwang, 1965）從事實徵研究來說明或預測他在本地社會中所觀察到的現象，如此才有可能跳脫「自我殖民」的困境。從社會學的角度來看，「文化系統」的研究取向不僅可以讓我們看出促進社會變遷的內在動力，在傳統與現代發生鬥爭的場合，知識分子也比較可能做出合理的判斷，而不會重蹈五四時期盲目「反傳統主義」的覆轍。筆者分析文化的知識論策略是以科學哲學的演化系譜作為基礎而發展出來的。本文將根據上述論點，逐步批判《本土心理學研究》某位審稿人所做的評論，其評論將嚴重妨礙本土心理學發展。

Self-Colonization: Mainstream scientific research in psychology is a product of Western civilization. Most mainstream psychology theories are constructed on the presumptions of individualism; they are inadequate for understanding phenomena in most non-Western societies. However, non-Western psychologists tend to apply these mainstream paradigms when conducting empirical research in their own societies. Using previous research on Chinese moral thinking as an example, I illustrate that repetitive use of Western paradigms to conduct cross-cultural research in non-Western societies may result in the fallacy of circular argumentation. The conclusions thus obtained are biased and Western culture-centric and form a system of self-colonization. A Cultural Systems Approach: To help non-Western indigenous psychologists address this issue, Hwang (2019) developed an epistemological strategy for constructing culture-inclusive theories that consists of two steps: (1) constructing universal models of self/interpersonal relations, and (2) using such models as transcendental formal structures to analyze cultural systems. For example, Hwang constructed the mandala model of self (2011), the psychodynamic model of self-nature (2018), as well as the face and favor model for social interaction (1987, 2012). Hwang (2012, 2015a, 2020) then used these models to analyze the Confucian cultural system, which consists of four interrelated subsystems: (1) Confucian cosmology (宇宙論), (2) discourse on relationalism (關係論), (3) discourse on the human mind and nature (心性論), and (4) discourse on self-cultivation (修養論). Each subsystem can be used to derive additional culture-inclusive theories for conducting qualitative or quantitative empirical research. Autonomous Social Sciences: Non-Western scholars can apply Hwang's (2019) strategy to establish their own autonomous social sciences. They may construct culture-inclusive theories, use them as general laws (in accordance with Hempel's [1965] model of covering law), design adequate instruments and methods, and then utilize them as antecedent conditions for research to explain or to predict phenomena observed in the local society. This strategy provides a plausible method to escape the trap of self-colonization. From the perspective of sociology, a cultural systems approach may help non-Western scholars preserve their cultural standards. It may also enable researchers to perceive the internal cultural factors comprising the dynamic forces for social change. In the clash between modernity and traditionality, it may enable scholars to make rational choices instead of committing the fallacy of blind anti-traditionalism as China's intellectuals did in the May Fourth Period. A Critique of the Mentality of Scientism: Hwang's (2019) epistemological strategy was developed through a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary pedigree of the philosophy of science. Because most psychologists in Taiwan's scientific community conduct empirical research grounded in positivism (a natural sciences perspective), it is difficult for them to understand this approach, or even to follow the rationale for the arguments in which it is grounded. Many remain grounded in scientism, which emphasizes the natural sciences over other types of learning and culture. Therefore, I critique and respond to comments made by a reviewer of Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies point by point in order to demonstrate that a mentality endorsing scientism and mainstream psychological science will certainly hinder the future development of indigenous psychology in Taiwan.

1. Archer, M. S.(1995).Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
2. Bhaskar, R. A.(1978).The possibility of naturalism.Atlantic Highlands, NJ:Humanities Press.
3. Bhaskar, R. A.(1975).A realist theory of science.London:Verso.
4. Bhatia, S.(2011).Lost in translation: Cultural hybridity, acculturation, and human development.Human Development,54,400-407.
5. Bloom, A. H.(1974).Cambridge, MA,Harvard University.
6. Bloom, A. H.(1977).Two dimensions of moral reasoning: Social principledness and social humanism in cross-cultural perspective.Journal of Social Psychology,101,29-44.
7. Edwards, C. P.(1986).Cross-cultural research.Cognitive development and epistemology,New York:
8. Feyerabend, P. K.(1978).Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge.London:Verso.
9. Gadamer, H. G.(1985).Truth and method.New York:Crossroad Publishing.
10. Gendron, L.(1981).Gendron, L. (1981). An empirical study of the Defining Issues Test in Taiwan. Unpublished manuscript, Fujen Catholic University, Taiwan..
11. Gibbs, J.(1977).Kohlberg’s stages of moral development: A constructive critique.Harvard Educational Review,47,43-61.
12. Gibbs, J. C.(1979).Kohlberg’s moral stage theory: A Piagetian revision.Human Development,22,89-112.
13. Giddens, A.(1984).The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.
14. Habermas, J.,Shapiro, J. J.(Trans.)(1971).Knowledge and human interests.London:Heinemann.
15. Hardison, O. B.(1990).Disappearing through the skylight: Culture and technology in the twentieth century.Washington, DC:Georgetown University Press.
16. Hempel, C. G.(1965).Aspects of scientific explanation.New York:Macmillan.
17. Hermans, H. J. M.,Kempen, H. J. G.(1998).Moving cultures. The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society.American Psychologist,53,1111-1120.
18. Hwang, K. K.(1987).Face and favor: The Chinese power game.American Journal of Sociology,92,944-974.
19. Hwang, K. K.(2011).The mandala model of self.Psychological Studies,56(4),329-334.
20. Hwang, K. K.(2015).Cultural system vs. pan-cultural dimensions: Philosophical reflection on approaches for indigenous psychology.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,45(1),1-24.
21. Hwang, K. K.(2012).Foundations of Chinese psychology: Confucian social relations.New York:Springer.
22. Hwang, K. K.(2019).Culture-inclusive theories: An epistemological strategy.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
23. Hwang, K. K.(2018).Five virtues: Scientific approach for studying Confucian ethics and morality.International Journal of Science and Research Methodology,10(3),176-198.
24. Hwang, K. K.(2015).Culture-inclusive theories of self and social interaction: The approach of multiple philosophical paradigms.Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,45(1),39-62.
25. Jahoda, G.(2012).Critical reflections on some recent definitions of “culture.Culture & Psychology,18(3),289-303.
26. Kohlberg, L.(1981).Essays on moral development.San Francisco, CA:Harper and Row.
27. Kohlberg, L.(1984).Essays on moral development (Vol. 2): The psychology of moral development.San Francisco, CA:Harper and Row.
28. Kohlberg, L.(1973).Continuities in childhood and adult moral development revisited.Life-span developmental psychology,New York:
29. Kohlberg, L.,Colby, A.,Gibbs, J.,Speicher-Dubin, B.(1978).Standard from scoring manual.Cambridge:Center for Moral education, Harvard University.
30. Kroeber, A. L.,Kluckhohn, C.(1952).Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions.New York:Vintage Books.
31. Kuhn, S. T.(1970).The structure of science revolution.Chicago, IL:The University of Chicago Press.
32. Lei, T.,Cheng, S. W.(1984).Lei, T., & Cheng, S. W. (1984). An empirical study of Kohlberg’s theory and scoring system of moral judgment in Chinese society. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Moral Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA..
33. Ma, H. K.(1997)。The affective and cognitive aspects of moral development in Chinese。Indigenous Psychological Research in Chinese Societies，7，166-212。
34. Ma, H. K.(1988).Objective moral judgment in Hong Kong, Mainland China, and England.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,19,78-95.
35. Ma, H. K.,Cheung, C. K.(1996).A cross-cultural study of moral stage structure in Hong Kong Chinese, English, and Americans.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,27,700-713.
36. Nisan, M.,Kohlberg, L.(1982).University and variation in moral judgment: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study in Turkey.Child Development,53,865-876.
37. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
38. Rawls, J.(1971).A theory of justice.Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
39. Rest, J. R.(1979).Development in judging moral issues.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.
40. Rest, J. R.(1979).Revised manual for the Defining Issues Test.Minneapolis, MN:Moral Research Projects.
41. Rest, J. R.(1974).Manual for the Defining Issue Test: An objective test of moral judgment development.Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota.
42. Rest, J. R.(1976).Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues.New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
43. Rest, J.,Cooper, D.,Coder, R.,Masanz, J.,Anderson, D.(1974).Judging the important issues in moral dilemmas.Developmental Psychology,10,491-501.
44. Shweder, R.(1982).Liberalism as destiny.Contemporary Psychology,27,421-424.
45. Shweder, R. A.,Hatano, G.,LeVine, R. A.,Markus, H.,Miller, P.(1998).The cultural psychology of development: One mind, many mentalities.Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development,Hoboken, NJ:
46. Snarey, J.(1982).Harvard University.
47. Snarey, J. R.(1985).Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of Kohlbergian research.Psychological Bulletin,27,202-232.
48. Taylor, C.(1985).Human agency and language: Philosophical papers I.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
49. Taylor, C.(1985).Human agency and language.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
50. Tietjen, A.,Walker, L.(1984).Tietjen, A., & Walker, L. (1984). Moral reasoning and leadership among men in a Papua New Guinea village. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada..
51. Vasudev, J.(1983).PA,University of Pittsburgh.
52. Weinreich-Haste, H.(Ed.) ,Locke, D.(Ed.)(1983).Morality in the making: Thought, action, and the social context.Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.
53. Wilson, R. W.(1974).The moral state: A study of the political socialization of Chinese and American children.New York:Free Press.
54. 王憲鈿（譯）,Piaget, J.(1989).發生認識論原理.北京:商務印書館.
55. 周寄中（譯）,Lakatos, I.(1990).批判與知識的成長.台北:桂冠圖書公司.
56. 倪連生（譯）,王琳（譯）,Piaget, J.(1968).結構主義.北京:商務印書館.
57. 陳英豪(1980)。修訂道德判斷測驗及其相關研究。教育學刊，1，334-361。
58. 陳衛平（譯）,Laudan, L.(1992).科學的進步與問題.台北:桂冠圖書公司.
59. 傅寶玉,雷霆(1991)。社會思慮發展研究在港、台。中國人．中國心，台北:
60. 單文經(1980)。臺灣師範大學教育研究所。
61. 程小危(1991)。道德判斷發展研究的泛文化性探討。中國人．中國心，台北:
62. 程實定（譯）,Popper, K.(1989).客觀知識.台北:結構群文化公司.
63. 黃光國(2019).內聖與外王：儒家思想的完成與開展.台北:心理出版社.
64. 黃光國(2011).心理學的科學革命方案.台北:心理出版社.
65. 黃光國(2009).儒家關係主義：哲學反思、理論建構與實徵研究.台北:心理出版社.
66. 葉光輝,楊國樞(2008).中國人的孝道：心理學的分析.台北:臺灣大學出版中心.
67. 葉啟政(2001).傳統與現代的鬥爭遊戲.台北:巨流圖書公司.

1. 顏志龍(2021)。實證是心理科學的必要但非充分條件。本土心理學研究，55，169-179。
2. 張仁和(2021)。難上加難的道德兩難：東西文化在道德心理之可能對話。本土心理學研究，55，161-168。