孔恩、布洛爾與對稱性原則

Thomas Kuhn, David Bloor, and the Principle of Symmetry

10.6464/TJSSTM.201404_(18).0002

戴東源(Dong-Yuan Tai)

科技史 ； 科學哲學 ； 科學知識社會學 ； 翼型 ； 利益 ； history of technology ； philosophy of science ； sociology of scientific knowledge ； aerofoil ； interest

科技醫療與社會

18期（2014 / 04 / 01）

99 - 152

繁體中文

孔恩觀點是否符合科學知識社會學（SSK）立場並預示其對稱性原則？一般對此問題的回應論述，不是引用孔恩自己反對SSK的言論，就是以《科學革命的結構》為界區分孔恩觀點為前後期，前期孔恩符合或接近SSK，後期孔恩牴觸SSK。本文論述稍異於兩者。本文先檢視孔恩說詞，再分析孔恩內－外史的編史學觀點，然後考察對稱性原則起草人布洛爾的科技史研究。孔恩對於內、外史的定義異於一般史學家的區別，他認定的「內史」已經跨越到傳統的外史領域；而孔恩反對實證派聚焦科學知識內容的哲學觀，論述多有意凸顯科學的外在因素對於科學發展的影響，這使得孔恩的觀點有外在論傾向，看似與SSK相近但其實還遠，尤其與對稱性原則無關。本文審視布洛爾的科技史案例研究，分析其利益說明模式及對稱性原則的要求。利益說明是孔恩反對的，而對稱性原則一個鮮明的特徵（即便布洛爾和其他SSK成員沒有強調），在於刻意區別出真與假、成功與失敗理論兩邊支持群體的社會（階級、身分）特徵並對立起來。不論是前期孔恩，還是後期孔恩，都沒有這種傾向。即使一般認為最接近SSK的前期孔恩《哥白尼革命》、《科學革命的結構》，也看不出刻意區別地心－日心說或燃素－氧氣說兩邊支持群體的社會特徵的論述。不論孔恩說詞一致與否，他的論述沒有SSK那種社會決定論立場及對稱性原則始終如一。

Is Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific changes consistent with the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) and the principle of symmetry? One may divide Kuhn's thought into ＂early Kuhn＂ and ＂late Kuhn＂, bifurcated by the publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. The early Kuhn closely resembles SSK; the late Kuhn does not. In this article I first examine Kuhn's own words regarding SSK and his viewpoint regarding internalism and externalism in the historiography of science. Then I analyze David Bloor's application of the principle of symmetry to case studies in the history of technology. It will emerge that Kuhn's idea of internalismexternalism in historiography is rather unorthodox. His own definition of ＂internalism＂ approximates the definition of externalism accepted by most historians. This is one reason why Kuhn's thought is superficially similar to SSK but is actually very different and has nothing to do with the principle of symmetry. Whether early Kuhn or late Kuhn, my analysis reveals no adherence to the principle of symmetry used by Bloor or other SSKists to deliberately mark off two social classes or status groups into advocates of true or false, successful or failed theories.

1. Fu, Daiwie(2008).Hacking on Kuhn and Foucault.Taiwanese Journal for Studies of Science, Technology and Medicine,7,203-214.
   連結：
2. Hacking, Ian(2008).Comments and Replies.Taiwanese Journal for Studies of Science, Technology and Medicine,7,265-294.
   連結：
3. Prandtl, Ludwig and O. G. Tietjens (1934) Applied Hydro- and Aeromechanics, based on Lectures by L. Prandtl, translated by J. P. Den Hartog. New York: Dover.
4. Anderson, John David(1997).A History of Aerodynamics and Its Impact on Flying Machines.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
5. Barnes, Barry(1981).On the 'Hows' and 'Whys' of Cultural Change.Social Studies of Science,11,481-498.
6. Barnes, Barry(1977).Interests and the Growth of Knowledge.London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
7. Barnes, Barry(1982).T. S. Kuhn and Social Science.New York:Columbia University Press.
8. Barnes, Barry,Bloor, David,Henry, John(1996).Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis.London:The Athlone Press.
9. Barnes, Barry,Dolby, G. A.(1970).The Scientific Ethos: A Deviant Viewpoint.European Journal of Sociology,11,3-25.
10. Bijker, Wiebe E.(1993).Do Not Despair: There Is Life after Constructivism.Science Technology & Human Values,18,113-138.
11. Bloor, David(1973).Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,4,173-191.
12. Bloor, David(1999).Anti-Latour.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,30(1),81-112.
13. Bloor, David(1991).Knowledge and Social Imagery.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
14. Bloor, David(2011).The Enigma of the Aerofoil: Rival Theories in Aerodynamics, 1909-1930.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
15. Bloor, David(1982).Durkheim and Mauss Revisited: Classification and the Sociology of Knowledge.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,13(4),267-297.
16. Bloor, David、艾彥譯(2001)。知識與社會意象。北京:東方出版社。
17. Brante, T.(ed.),Fuller, S.(ed.),Lynch, W.(ed.)(1993).Controversial Science: from Content to Contention.Albany:State University of New York Press.
18. Clark, George(1970).Science and Social Welfare in the Age of Newton.Oxford:Clarendon.
19. Collins, H. M.,Pinch, T.J.(2009).Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science.London:Routledge.
20. Collins, Harry M.(2012).Performances and Arguments.Metascience,21(2),409-418.
21. Dreyer, John Louis Emil(1953).A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler.New York:Dover.
22. Fuller, Steve(2000).Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
23. Gann, Lewis H.,Duignan, Peter(1995).The New Left and the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s: A Reevaluation.Stanford:Hoover Institution.
24. Graham, Loren R.(1993).Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
25. Habermas, Jurgen,Shapiro, Jeremy J.(Trans.)(1971).Knowledge and Human Interests.Boston:Beacon Press.
26. Hessen, Boris(1971).The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's Principia.Science at the Cross Roads,London:
27. Horgan, John(1991).Profile: Reluctant Revolutionary: Thomas S. Kuhn Unleashed 'Paradigm' on the World.Scientific American,264,14-15.
28. Keele, R. Wallis(ed.)(1979).On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge.University of Keele Press.
29. Knorr-Cetina, K. D.(ed.),Krohn, R.(ed.),Whitley, R.(ed.)(1980).The Social Process of Scientific Investigation.Dordrecht:D. Reidel.
30. Kuhn, Thomas(1987).Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
31. Kuhn, Thomas(1957).The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press.
32. Kuhn, Thomas(1972).Scientific Growth: Reflections on Ben-David's "Scientific role".Minerva,10,166-78.
33. Kuhn, Thomas(1983).Reflections on Receiving the John Desmond Bernal Award.4S Review,1(4),26-30.
34. Kuhn, Thomas(1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
35. Kuhn, Thomas(1977).The Essential Tension.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
36. Kuhn, Thomas(1970).Reflections on My Critics.Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge,Cambridge:
37. Kuhn, Thomas,Conant, James(ed.),Haugeland, John(ed.)(2000).The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993, with an Autobiographical Interview.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
38. Kuhn, Thomas、傅大為譯、程樹德譯、王道還譯(1985)。科學革命的結構＝The Structure of Scientific Revolutions。台北:允晨文化公司。
39. Latour, Bruno(1999).For Bloor and Beyond: a reply to David Bloor's 'Anti-Latour'.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science,30(1),113-129.
40. Latour, Bruno(2010).On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods.Durhami:Duke University Press.
41. Laudan, Larry(1981).The Pseudo-Science of Science?.Philosophy of the Social Sciences,11,173-198.
42. MacKenzie, Donald(1981).Interests, Positivism and History.Social Studies of Science,11,498-504.
43. MacKenzie, Donald(1978).Statistical Theory and Social Interests: A Case-Study.Social Studies of Science,8,35-83.
44. Merton, Robert K.(1993).Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England.New York:Howard Fertig.
45. Merton, Robert K.(1973).The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
46. Neurath, Otto(ed.),Carnap, Rudolf(ed.),Morris, Charles(ed.)(1955).International Encyclopedia of Unified Science.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
47. Nola, Robert(2000).Saving Kuhn from the Sociologists of Science.Science & Education,9,77-90.
48. Pickering, A.(ed.)(1992).Science as Practice and Culture.Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.
49. Pinch, Trevor J.(1979).Paradigm Lost? A Review Symposium.Isis,70,437-440.
50. Shapin, Steven(1992).Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate.History of Science,30,333-369.
51. Shapin, Steven(1995).Here and Everywhere: Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.Annual Review of Sociology,21,289-321.
52. Westman, Robert(1994).Two Cultures or One? A Second Look at Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution.Isis,85(1),79-115.
53. Woolgar, Steve(1981).Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science.Social Studies of Science,11,365-394.
54. Ziman, John(1983).Introduction of the 1983 Recipient of the John Desmond Bernal Award-Thomas S. Kuhn.4S Review,1(4),24-25.
55. 黃之棟編、黃瑞祺編、李正風編(2012)。科技與社會：社會建構論、科學社會學和知識社會學的視角。台北:群學。
56. 戴東源(2005)。博士論文(博士論文)。台中，東海大學哲學系。

1. 陳瑞麟(2019)。一個另類的STS方法論。科技醫療與社會，28，9-53。
2. 戴東源(2017)。布洛爾的哲學立場及其波以耳案例研究。思與言：人文與社會科學雜誌，55(3)，137-175。
3. (2020)。書評：傅大為，《STS 的緣起與多重建構：橫看近代科學的一種編織與打造》。臺灣社會學刊，68，177-190。