站内搜索
  您现在的位置: 科技哲学教研室 >> 人大科哲 >> 教学与招生 >> 学位论文 >> 正文
2012-邱德胜 实验室研究的哲学意蕴
  作者:邱德胜    文章来源:本站原创    点击数:    更新时间:2012-7-20    
】【】【

论文类别:博士论文

论文作者:邱德胜

指导教师:刘大椿

答辩时间:20125

 


 

 

关键词科学知识社会学;实验室研究;社会建构论;异质建构论;实践建构论

科学的力量有目共睹,科学对于当代世界不可或缺,然而,它在给人类带来福祉的同时也导致了许多不幸事件的发生。人们在对科学的社会功能产生质疑的同时,一些老生常谈的话题再一次成为了人们关注的焦点:科学究竟是什么?客观性、实在性以及真理性是科学的本质特征还是人类对它的褒奖?科学是对自然的真实写照还是一种主观的社会建构?随着这些问题的凸显,人们发起了关于科学的新一轮反思。与以往不同的是,人们不再停留于对科学的哲学思辨,而是着力于考察科学知识的生产过程,试图揭示科学知识生产背后不为人知的秘密。实验室作为科学知识生产的第一现场无疑成为了人们关注的对象,实验室研究由此产生。

实验室研究是20世纪60年代开始出现的一个重要的研究领域,它的产生有着复杂的社会历史与文化背景,但在笔者看来,比较直接的有三个:第一个是科学哲学之于科学从辩护到批判的话语转换;第二个是科学知识社会学的兴起与微观转向;第三个是人类学的本土回归与科技人类学的兴起。尤其是基于科学知识社会学纲领的实验室研究更是引人注目,因为研究者将科学知识视为一种社会建构的产物,自然在科学知识的生产中基本不起什么作用。为了获得科学知识社会建构论的第一手证据,一些哲学家、社会学家开始以人类学家的身份深入到多个国家的著名实验室,他们采用了不同于传统哲学思辨的一些新的研究方法,如自然主义与经验主义的研究方法、人类学的田野调查与民族志方法以及常人方法论的话语分析与工作研究方法等等。

在社会建构论纲领的指导下,拉图尔、诺尔-塞蒂纳等人来到实验室,他们不仅就科学事实与科学论文的建构过程做了详尽的考察和分析,还指出科学知识正如他们所述的那样是一种社会建构的产物。然而,社会建构论及其实验室研究由于理论的预设性、方法运用的不彻底性和不规范性以及结论的偏狭性等遭到了来自社会各界的批评,科学知识社会学的内部也开始分化。作为对实验室研究的拓展,基于对前述观点的改良,拉图尔、皮克林等人开始将关注的重点从实验室之内转移到实验室之外,他们不再简单的将社会因素看作科学知识形成的决定因素,而是通过行动者网络理论、实践的冲撞理论等生发出异质建构论和实践建构论的科学观。科学的异质建构论与实践建构论不仅导引了自然的回归,而且还打破了传统哲学的主客二分模式,它们不仅将人类与非人类因素融为一体,还将时间因素赋予对科学的理解之中。然而,异质与实践建构论并不完美,我们需要做的是将科学放到一个大的背景下来理解,在关注科学知识内在建构的同时,也注重科学技术与社会之关系的考察,勿将科学妖魔化,而是要倡导一种作为日常实践的科学观。

基于以上思路,论文得以逐次展开。整篇论文分为六个部分,除导论和结语外,主要内容包括四章。导论部分从实验室研究的文献综述出发,通过对国内外一手文献及其研究文献的系统整理与分析,导引出论文研究的意义和价值,此外,还对论文的研究内容、研究方法及其创新之处做了概略性的阐述;第一章主要探讨实验室研究的理论背景;第二章重点梳理了实验室研究的演化轨迹与方法运用;第三章对实验室研究的内容及其主要结论做了深入系统的解读,并对社会建构论纲领下的实验室研究作了多角度的批判性评价;第四章是实验室研究的拓展,主要探讨了前期实验室研究及其社会建构论观点的两种改良方案,即异质建构论与实践建构论,之后对它们做了前瞻性的分析和评价;结语作为论文的最后一部分,虽然篇幅不长,但它是笔者主要观点的集中体现。笔者相信,在对实验室研究的系统反思过后,一种作为日常实践的科学观将会浮出水面,并将成为人们理解科学的重要理据。

本论文通过对实验室研究的背景、方法等的梳理以及对科学知识的社会建构论、异质建构论及其实践建构论的延展性解读,最后导引出一种新的科学观,这些将为社会大众走近科学、理解科学以及反思科学提供新的视角。同时,由于论文的研究立足于科学知识社会学、科学哲学、科学社会学、人类学、常人方法论等一系列学科的理论体系与最新进展,并对拉图尔、诺尔-塞蒂纳、林奇、皮克林、哈金、劳斯等众多当代一流学者的思想做了评介,这必将有助于国内学界在相关领域的深度研究。

  

     

 

     

0.1文献研究综述 

0.1.1国外研究综述     

0.1.2国内研究综述     

0.2研究的理论与实际意义 

0.2.1研究的理论意义  

0.2.2研究的实际意义  

0.3论文的主要内容与基本架构 

0.3.1主要内容     

0.3.2基本架构     

0.4研究方法与创新之处    

0.4.1研究方法     

0.4.2 创新之处    

1  实验室研究的理论背景      

1.1从辩护到批判:科学哲学的话语转换 

1.1.1正统科学哲学对科学的辩护     

1.1.2 修正主义科学哲学对科学的质疑    

1.1.3另类科学哲学对科学的批判     

1.2科学知识社会学的兴起与微观转向    

1.2.1 科学知识社会学的理论渊源    

1.2.2科学知识社会学的研究纲领     

1.2.3科学知识社会学研究场点聚焦  

1.3人类学研究的本土回归与科技人类学的兴起    

1.3.1人类学研究的本土回归     

1.3.2科技人类学概念释义  

1.3.3科技人类学的兴起     

2 实验室研究的历史演进与方法运用     

2.1实验室研究的历史与现状    

2.1.1 实验室的概念与分类 

2.1.2 实验室研究的发展轨迹    

2.1.3实验室研究代表作品述介  

2.2实验室研究的主要理念与方法    

2.2.1自然主义与经验主义的研究方法     

2.2.2人类学的田野调查与民族志方法     

2.2.3常人方法论的话语分析与工作研究方法  

3 社会建构论与科学知识的实验室建构 

3.1社会建构论的哲学基础 

3.1.1本体论的追问与主体性的觉醒  

3.1.2主客二分的出现与符合论真理观的无奈  

3.2 科学事实的实验室建构

3.2.1 解释之一:作为一种受害者的“自然”和“真理”    

3.2.2 解释之二:事实建构渗透着决定    

3.2.3解释之三:事实建构的创新与选择  

3.2.4 科学事实的建构过程——以TRFH)的建构为例     

3.3科学论文的实验室建构 

3.3.1 无序与有序:科学实践与科学论文的双向互动    

3.3.2 求真与修辞:科学论文的双重脸谱 

3.3.3修改与掩饰:从利益分合到与境重建     

3.4实验室建构的驱动力——增加可信性 

3.4.1 可信性的原始积累    

3.4.2 可信性的循环    

3.5 对社会建构论及其实验室研究的批判性评价   

3.5.1 研究目的的理论预设性    

3.5.2 研究方法的不彻底性与不规范性    

3.5.3 研究结论的偏狭性    

4  异质与实践建构论:实验室研究的拓展   

4.1异质建构论与科学知识的异质建构    

4.1.1 行动者的招募与网络的组建    

4.1.2 行动者网络的形成与扩散 

4.1.3 行动者网络的功能增强与性能稳定 

4.2 异质建构论的理论旨趣

4.2.1追求科学解释的的广义对称性原则  

4.2.2倡导物我一体的混体本体论哲学     

4.2.3强调科学知识异质建构的时间之维  

4.3实践建构论与科学知识的实践建构    

4.3.1 实践建构的基础:异质性力量的舞蹈    

4.3.2实践建构的工具:操作性语言描述  

4.3.3实践建构的方式:实践的冲撞  

4.4实践建构论的解释功能 

4.4.1 科学实在论及其实践阐释 

4.4.2不可通约性及其实践阐释  

4.5 对实验室研究拓展方案的评价   

4.5.1 建构论的演化:从异质到实践 

4.5.2 实在论的演化:从表征到干预 

4.5.3 不可通约的演化:从单一理论到多股链条    

结语:作为一种日常实践的科学      

科学活动是日常生活世界的一部分   

科学研究遵循常人学的推理逻辑      

科学实践蕴含着过程的实在性与客观性   

参考文献      

          

Abstract

Science is indispensable for the contemporary world, and its power is obvious to all the people. Although science has brought the human well-being, it leads to a number of unfortunate incidents. When people calls the social function of science in question, some outdated sayings once again become our focus of attention: What really is science. Do objectivity, reality and truth belong to the essential qualities of science or the praises we give to it? Is science a true reflection of nature or a kind of subjective social construction? With these problems conspicuous, we have once again began to think about science. Unlike the past, we are no longer restricted to philosophical speculation on science, but concentrate on the investigation of the production process of scientific knowledge and try to reveal the secrets behind the production of scientific knowledge. As the first scene of the production of scientific knowledge, laboratory has undoubtedly become our focus of attention, and therefore laboratory studies came into being.

 

In the 1960s laboratory studies became an important research field, and it was due to the complex background of social history and culture. In my opinion, there were three manifest reasons: firstly, the conversion of discourse from defense to criticism in the relationship of scientific philosophy to science; secondly, the rise of the sociology of scientific knowledge and microcosmic steering; thirdly, the local regression of anthropology and the rise of anthropology of science and technology. In particular, the laboratory studies, based on the sociology of scientific knowledge, was more attractive, because it was believed that scientific knowledge was the product of social construction, and nature played little role in the production of scientific knowledge. In order to find the first-hand evidence for the social construction of scientific knowledge in the laboratory, some philosophers and sociologists, in their capacity as anthropologists, began to make an in-depth investigation in the well-known laboratories of many countries. In order to find more evidence for their philosophical assertion of social construction,they adopted some new research methods, which were different from the traditional philosophical speculation, such as the methods of naturalism and empiricism, field survey and ethnographic methods of anthropology, and discourse analysis and research methods of ethnomethodology, etc.   

 

Under the guidance of the program of the social construction, Bruno Latour, Knorr-Cetina and others came into the laboratory. They not only investigated and analysed the construction process between science fact and science research in detail, but also pointed out that the scientific knowledge, as they put it, was the product of social construction. However, social constructionism and its laboratory studies, because of the theoretical presupposition, the incompletion and irregularities in method using, and the insularity of conclusion, has suffered from various criticisms, and there was  also a differentiation inside the sociology of scientific knowledge. As the expansion of laboratory studies and the improvement of the aboved-mentioned viewpoint, Bruno Latour ,Andrew Pickering and others began to shift the emphasis from the inside of the laboratory to the outside. They no longer simply considered the society as the determinant of scientific knowledge, but proposed the outlook of science, heterogeneous construction and practical construction, through the actor network theory and practice collide theory. Heterogeneous and practical constructivism of science led to the return of nature and broke the binary opposition of subject and object in the traditional philosophy. They not only combined the factors of the human and the non-human, but also in the scientific understanding took the element of time into account, which was undoubtedly of great significance. However, Heterogeneous construction and practical construction are not perfect, and science should be put into a larger context. On the one side, we should pay heed to the interior construction of scientific knowledge; on the other side, the inquiry into the relationship between science and technology also deserves our attention. We should not demonize science, but rather advocate a kind of a outlook of science as daily practice.

 

The whole dissertation is based on the above idea, and it is divided into six parts, of which, except the Introduction and Conclusion, the main part includes four chapters. In the Introduction, the significance and value of the investigation is demonstrated through the summary of the current situation of laboratory studies at home and abroad. in addition, give a summary elaboration on the research content, research methods and innovation made.In the following two chapters I articulate the background, development route, and the methods of laboratory studies. In the third chapter the content and the main consequence of laboratory studies has been explained in detail and social constructionism and laboratory studies have also been interpreted in different perspectives. The next chapter is concerned with the expansion of laboratory studies.In this chapter I explained the earlier laboratory studies and two improved programs, heterogeneous constructionism and practical constructionism, of which I has made a systematical and deep analysis. As the last part, the Conclusion, however, is very brief, it intensively reflects the main points of my own. After the systematical meditation on laboratory studiesI believe a daily practice scientific outlook will appear, and will become the important basis of understanding science for people.

 

Through the articulation of the background and methods of laboratory studies  and the ductility interpretation of social constructionism, heterogeneous constructionism and practical constructionism, I try to propose a new outlook of science. Because of these, a new perspective, which is helpful to the people to approach, understand and reflect on science, will be supplied. Besides, this dissertation, based on sociology of scientific knowledge, scientific philosophy, sociology of science, anthropology, ethnomethodology and a series of theoretical systems of disciplines and their new progress, and including the comments on many contempory leading scholars, such as Bruno Latour , Knorr-Cetina , Michael Lynch, Andrew Pickering, Ian Hacking ,Joseph Rouse etc, will contribute to the domestic further studies on the involving fields.

 

Keywords: sociology of scientific knowledge; laboratory studies; social construction; heterogeneous construction; practical construction

  • 上一篇文章:
  • 下一篇文章: 没有了
  • 打印】  【关闭】  【返回
    Copyright © 2010-2012 Philosophy of Science and Technology,Renmin University of China All Rights Reserved.
    中国人民大学哲学院科技哲学教研室 版权所有 京ICP备10216924号;京公网备110108007581