孔恩vs.STS的興起：《科學革命的結構》五十年的驀然回首

Kuhn vs. the Rise of STS: the Fiftieth Annuversary of ＂The Structure＂

10.6464/TJSSTM.201404_(18).0001

傅大為(Dai-Wie Fu)

孔恩 ； STS的興起 ； 科學革命的結構 ； Kuhn ； the Rise of STS ； ＂The Structure of Scientific Revolutions＂ ； Fuller ； Forman

科技醫療與社會

18期（2014 / 04 / 01）

29 - 88+90-98

繁體中文

本文起源自多年前筆者的一個迷團：為何孔恩對SSK/STS頗有意見與感到遺憾？而筆者自己卻毫無感到兩造之間在知性上的溝通障礙。筆者不同意一般的說法，如Hacking說孔恩對STS有大敵意，進而反其向去搜尋與重估許多SSK/STS與孔恩相關的思想史與學術史，其中包括孔恩的學生、敵人、回憶、論戰、與宣言等，企圖建構起一張具多重管道的思想史網絡，過程中也質疑了一些流行說法或敵意評論，如孔恩是STS的國父、孔恩對STS有倒置的Oedipus情結、孔恩對STS有很壞的影響、孔恩是個冷戰時代的保守者、孔恩甚至疏離了他自己的《結構》觀點等，同時筆者也詮釋了孔恩說《結構》不是社會學著作的意義。筆者強調孔恩是個STS重要的先行者，他與STS是個「近親的競爭者」關係。但因緣際會，他站在一個（內vs.外）科學史、科學哲學、科學社會學、科學知識的社會學等多種強大歷史軌跡的交會點上，一個非常難站得直又穩的交會點。在《結構》出版五十年的今天，筆者謙卑地希望回復孔恩一個與STS更具建設性的良性競爭關係。

This paper originates from an old puzzle of mine: why it was so difficult for Kuhn and his SSK/STS admirers or commentators to communicate smoothly with each other. Treating as a complicated web of intellectual history the documents of his students, enemies, interviews, or declarations, I trace through them and reevaluate their multiple channels. I question the validity of the following theses raised in recent years on Kuhn; that Kuhn is the father of STS, has a reverse Oedipus complex on STS younger scholars, exerted a very bad influence on STS, is a conservative in the Cold War era, and I also explain why Kuhn later considered his Structure not a sociology work. The results of this study are that among other forrunners of STS, Kuhn is an important but often misunderstood one, and that he considered himself genealogically as a close relative of but also a serious competitor with SSK/STS. My humble hope in this paper, during the 50th anniversary of publication of Structure, is to recover or to restore Kuhn in a more constructive and fruitful relationship with STS.

1. 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。
   連結：
2. Morris Errol (2011, March). The Ashtray: The Ultimatum (part I-V).In New York Times.
3. Agar, Jon(2008).What happened in the Sixties?.The British Journal for History of Science,41(4),567-600.
4. Anderson, Warwick(2007).How Far can East Asian STS go?: A Commentary.East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal,1(2),249-250.
5. Andresen, Jensine(1999).Crisis and Kuhn.Isis,90(Spplement),S43-S67.
6. Barnes, Barry(1982).T.S. Kuhn and Social Science.New York:Columbia University Press.
7. Barnes, Barry,Bloor, David,Henry, John(1996).Scientific Knowledge: A sociological analysis.London:Athlone Press.
8. Barnes, Barry,Caneva, Kenneth(2001).The Best of Times, the Worst of Times: a Review of Thomas Kuhn.Metascience,10(2),160-171.
9. Barnes, Barry,Shapin, Steve(1977).Where is the Edge of Objectivity.British Journal for the History of Science,10(1),61-66.
10. Bernal, J.D.(1971).Science in History, Vol. 3: The Natural Sciences in Our Time.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
11. Bernal, J.D.(1971).Science in History, Vol. 2: The Scientific and Industrial Revolution.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
12. Bernal, J.D.(1971).Science in History, Volume 1: The Emergence of Science.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
13. Bernal, J.D.(1971).Science in History, Vol. 4: The Social Sciences: Conclusion.Cambridge:The MIT Press.
14. Biagioli, Mario(1993).Galileo, Courtier.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
15. Bijker, Wiebe(2003).The Need for Public Intellectuals: A Space for STS.Science, Technology and Human Values,28(4),443-450.
16. Bloor, David(1971).Two Paradigms of Scientific Knowledge? A Review.Science Studies,1(1),101-115.
17. Bloor, David(1975).A Philosophical Approach to Science.Social Studies of Science,5(4),507-517.
18. Bloor, David(1978).Polyhedra and the Abominations of Leviticus.The British Journal for the History of Science,11(3),245-272.
19. Bloor, David(1982).Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,13(4),267-297.
20. Bloor, David(1991).Knowledge and Social Imagery.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
21. Carson, Cathryn,Kojevnikove, Alexei,Trischler, Helmuth(2011).The Forman Thesis: 40 years after.Weimar Culture and Quantum Mechanics: Selected Papers by Paul Forman and Contemporary Perspectives on the Forman Thesis,London:
22. Collins, Harry,Evans, Robert(2002).The Third Wave in Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.Social Studies of Science,32(2),235-296.
23. Cozzens, Susan(1993).Female Founders of STS.Science, Technology, and Human Values,18,403-407.
24. Douglas, Mary(1978).A Book Review of Bloor's Knowledge and Social Imagery.Sociological Review,26(1),154-57.
25. Duhem, Pierre,Lyon, John(trans.)(1991).German Science: Some Reflections on German Science/German Science and German Virtues.Illinois:Open Court Publishing Company.
26. Feyerabend, Paul(1993).Against Method.New York:Verso.
27. Forman, Paul(1971).Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment.Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences,3,1-115.
28. Forman, Paul(2007).The Primacy of Science in Modernity, of Technology in Postmodernity, and of Ideology in the History of Technology.History and Technology,23(1-2),1-152.
29. Forman, Paul(1987).Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in US, 1940-60.Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences,18(1),149-229.
30. Forrester, John(2007).On Kuhn's Case, Psychoanalysis and the Paradigm.Critical Inquiry,33,782-819.
31. Fu, Daiwie(2007).How Far Can East Asian STS Go? A position paper.East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal,1(1),1-14.
32. Fu, Daiwie(1995).Higher Taxonomy and Higher Incommensurability.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,26(3),273-294.
33. Fu, Daiwie(1995).A Critical Discussion of the Idea of "Non-Masculine Science".10th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science,Florence, Italy:
34. Fuller, Steve(2000).Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
35. Fuller, Steve(2001).Author's Response: Must we all be Kuhnians now?.Metascience,10(2),171-179.
36. Fuller, Steve(1997).Thomas Kuhn: a Personal Judgment.History of the Human Sciences,10,129-131.
37. Fuller, Steve(2012).CSI: Kuhn and Latour.Social Studies of Science,42(3),429-434.
38. Gaston, Jerry(ed.)(1978).Sociology of Science.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.
39. Golinski, Jan(2005).Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science, with a new Preface.Chicago:University Of Chicago Press.
40. Gordon, Colin(ed.)(1980).Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977.New York:Pantheon Books.
41. Hacking, Ian(2008).Comments and Replies, in Hacking Meets Taiwanese Critics panel discussion.科技、醫療與社會,7,265-293.
42. Hacking, Ian(2012).Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition,Chicago:
43. Hacking, Ian(2009).Scientific Reason.Taipei:National Taiwan University Press.
44. Hacking, Ian(1999).The Social Construction of What?.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
45. Jasanoff, Sheila(2012).Geneologies of STS.Social Studies of Science,42(3),435-441.
46. Knorr, W.R.(ed.),Krohn, Roger(ed.),Whitley, Robert(ed.)(1980).The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, Sociology of Science Yearbook 4.
47. Koyré, Alexandre(1957).From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe.The Johns Hopkins University Press.
48. Kuhn, Thomas(1957).The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
49. Kuhn, Thomas(2000).The Road since Structure: philosophical essays, 1970-1993, with an Autobiographical Interview.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
50. Kuhn, Thomas(1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
51. Kuhn, Thomas(1987).Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912.Chicago:University Of Chicago Press.
52. Kuhn, Thomas(1977).The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
53. Kuhn, Thomas(1983).Reflections on receiving the John Desmond Bernal Award.4S Review,1(4),26-30.
54. McCormmach, Russell(1982).Night Thoughts of a Classical Physicist.Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
55. McCormmach, Russell(1971).Editor's Forward.Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences,3,ix-xxiv.
56. Merton, Robert(1979).The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir.Carbondale:Southern Illinois University Press.
57. Mialet, Hélène(2012).Where would STS be without Latour? What would be missing?.Social Studies of Science,42(3),456-461.
58. Nakajima, Hideto(2007).Differences in East Asian STS: European Origin of American Origin?.East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal,1(2),237-241.
59. Nakayama, Shigeru(2007).Thomas Kuhn: a Historian's personal Recollection.Historia Scientiarum,17(1),49-53.
60. Pinch, Trevor,Klein, Martin J.,Shimony, Abner(1979).Paradigm Lost? A Review Symposium:BlackBody Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912 Thomas S. Kuhn.Isis,70(3),429-440.
61. Price, Derek J. de Solla(1963).Little Science, Big Science.New York:Columbia University Press.
62. Rouse, Joseph(2011).Philosophy of Science and Science Studies in the West: An unrecognized Convergence.East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal,5(1),11-26.
63. Rudwick, Martin(1985).The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge Among Gentlemanly Specialists.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
64. Shapin, Steve(1992).Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate.History of Science,30,333-369.
65. Shapin, Steve,Schaffer, Simon(1985).Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
66. Shapin, Steve,Schaffer, Simon(2011).Leviathan and the Air-Pump.New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
67. Sismondo, Sergio(2012).Fifty years of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, twenty-five of Science in Action.Social Studies of Science,42(3),415-419.
68. Thackray, Arnold(Ed.)(1984).The Sarton Centennial Issue.Isis: An International Review Devoted to the History of Science,75(1),1-240.
69. Turner, Stephen(2012).Whatever happened to Knowledge.Social Studies of Science,42(3),474-480.
70. Westman, Robert(2011).The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism, and Celestial Order.Berkeley:University of California Press.
71. Westman, Robert(1994).Two Cultures or One? A Second Look at Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution.Isis,85(1),79-115.
72. Wise, Norton(2011).Forman Reformed, Again.Weimar Culture and Quantum Mechanics: Selected Papers by Paul Forman and Contemporary Perspectives on the Forman Thesis,London:
73. Wisnioski, Matt(2003).Inside "the System": Engineers, Scientists, and the Boundaries of Social Protest in the long 1960s.History and Technology,19(4),313-333.
74. Zammito, John(2004).A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Postpositivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour.Chicago:University Of Chicago Press.
75. Ziman, John(1983).Introduction of the 1983 Recipient of the John Desmond Bernal Award-Thomas S. Kuhn.4S Review,1(4),24-25.
76. 孔恩(1992)。孔恩與『中國文化、民主與科學』研討會座談。異時空裡的知識追逐
77. 朱元鴻編、傅大為編(2001)。孔恩：評論集。台北:巨流。
78. 吳嘉苓編、傅大為編、雷祥麟編(2004)。科技渴望性別。台北:群學。
79. 陳瑞麟(2004)。科學理論版本的結構與發展。台北:台灣大學出版中心。
80. 傅大為(1992)。異時空裡的知識追逐。台北:東大圖書。
81. 黃之棟編(2012)。科技與社會。台北:群學。
82. 戴東源(2012)。孔恩與科學知識社會學。陽明大學「結構五十年」工作坊

1. 陳瑞麟(2014)。革命、演化與拼裝：從HPS 到STS，從歐美到台灣。科技、醫療與社會，18，281-334。
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. 洪廣冀(2016)。科技研究中的地理轉向及其在地理學中的迴響。地理學報，83，23-69。
4. 洪靖(2020)。CSI：Kuhn、SSK與STS評《STS的緣起與多重建構：橫看近代科學的一種編織與打造》。科技醫療與社會，31，203-211。
5. 萬毓澤(2015)。如何停止憂慮並愛上演化思維：從孔恩的「演化轉向」到「一般化達爾文主義」。科技、醫療與社會，20，181-222。
6. (2018)。大數據分析在傳播研究的運用—機會與挑戰。傳播管理學刊，19(2)，40-50。