题目：专家的社会认识论研究
答辩人：彭家锋
指导老师：刘永谋
答辩时间：2024年5月17日
目 录
绪论
0.1 问题引出
0.2研究现状
0.3研究方法
0.4概念界定
0.5 逻辑结构
第1章 专家、专长及其误解的澄清
1.1 专家角色的澄清与定位
1.1.1被科学哲学忽视的专家角色
1.1.2科学家的两种角色：专家与研究者
1.1.3 专家角色的四种特征
1.2 专长性质的一般性考察
1.2.1 成为专家意味着什么
1.2.2 理论知识还是实践知识
1.2.3“外行专长”与STS第三波浪潮
1.3 专家的局限与可能的误解
1.3.1 处在“中间车道”的专家
1.3.2 无法满足的公众期望
1.3.3 跨科学问题的存在
第2章 专家与公众互动的模型假设
2.1 能力胜任模型
2.1.1杜威的“批判性互动”视角
2.1.2舒茨的“消息灵通的公民”
2.1.3 认知多样性与价值选择
2.2 缺陷教育模型
2.2.1“公众理解科学”中的教育启蒙
2.2.2 良序科学与专家指导
2.3 认知分工模型
2.3.1分工目标与原初模型
2.3.2 其他分工决策模型
2.4反思与评价
第3章 基于认知不平等的认知依赖与信任
3.1 哈德维格论认知依赖
3.1.1 什么是认知依赖
3.1.2 认知依赖的“证词原则”
3.1.3 对哈德维格论点的回应
3.2 认知依赖中的信任作用
3.2.1 信任的一般定义
3.2.2 信任在科学中的作用
3.2.3 专家危机与信任的意义
3.3 认知信任的不平等基础与多层次特征
3.3.1认知不平等的两种形式
3.3.2 认知信任的多层次性
3.4 认知依赖和新手-专家问题
3.4.1 戈德曼鉴别专家的五种策略
3.4.2 专家鉴别策略的组合运用
第4章 理性面对专家的认知权威
4.1认知权威与认知自主之间的张力
4.1.1权威的基础及其变化
4.1.2认识论上的自主性理想
4.1.3 批判性思维原则及其批判
4.2有限先发制人的认知权威观
4.2.1 作为高阶证据的认知权威
4.2.2 业绩记录论证
4.2.3 高阶削弱挫败论证
4.3有限先发制人权威观的潜在问题及其回应
4.3.1 对三个可能担忧的回应
4.3.2 可能引发的进一步担忧
第5章 推动构建包容性的专家治理
5.1 包容性的专家治理何以可能
5.1.1 来自柏拉图的古典辩护
5.1.2 来自布伦南的当代辩护
5.1.3支持专家治理的三重论证
5.2 包容性专家治理的理论建构
5.2.1包容“外行专长”的必要性
5.2.2包容性专家治理的基本内涵
5.2.3包容性专家治理的主要原则
5.3 对包容性专家治理的反思
5.3.1与后常规科学的一致旨趣
5.3.2包容性专家治理的可能限制
5.3.3 对专家的遵从与问责
第6章 专家社会认识论研究的当代审度
6.1专家社会认识论研究的优势所在
6.1.1 作为当代民粹主义的清醒剂
6.1.2保持与传统认识论的连续性
6.1.3推动当代认识论研究的“社会转向”
6.2 专家社会认识论研究的不足之处
6.2.1 研究内容过于理论化
6.2.2 研究取向悖于民主化
6.2.3 研究视野缺乏中国关照
6.3专家社会认识论研究的未来方向
6.3.1汲取批判性认识论研究的合理因素
6.3.2审慎推动专长民主化发展
6.3.3 加强中国语境下的相关研究
结语
参考文献
致谢
摘 要
作为“关于现实世界的认识论”，社会认识论强调在对真理或知识获取的认识论考察中，不能仅限于理想孤立的认知主体身上，应当更加关照社会现实背景下的普罗大众。只要稍加思索便会发现：我们所拥有的大部分知识和信念都是从他人那里获取的或者最终归因于他人，我们对这些知识和信念根本没有直接的一手证据。原因很简单，因为我们所相信的事情多到我们无法一一为其提供相关证据，而我们的时间和资源大都是有限的。这也是社会的认知劳动分工和专业化发展带来的必然结果。然而，专家凭借专门的训练和相关经验的长期积累，获得了常人难以企及的专长，成为公众获取可靠知识的重要来源。我们可以将公众和专家的这种认知关系简单概括为专家与外行间的认知依赖关系。这种认知依赖关系既反映了专长的客观实在性和专家的认知优势地位，又揭示了专家与外行之间的认知不平等实质和认知信任的必要性。
研究共分为六章。第一章明确专家的角色定位与专长性质，区分专家与研究者，并揭示专家专长的复杂性和局限性，尤其是在应对跨科学问题时难以满足公众的期望。第二章探讨公众与专家互动的认知模型假设，包括能力胜任模型、缺陷教育模型和认知分工模型，并指出它们都在一定程度上忽视了专家与公众之间的认知依赖关系。第三章深入阐述认知依赖与认知信任问题，分析哈德维格的认知依赖概念，强调认知信任的重要性及其多层次特征，并提出识别可信赖专家的策略。第四章解决外行公众如何理性对待专家认知权威的问题，提出有限先发制人的认知权威观，并对这一观点的潜在问题进行回应。第五章在民主社会框架内，提出包容性专家治理的理念，认为应当整合“外行专长”以实现更为包容合理的专家治理，并对其理论旨趣、局限性及专家问责机制进行反思。第六章则全面审度专家社会认识论研究的积极意义与潜在挑战，并展望未来研究的可能方向。
结语部分归纳了本研究的主要观点：1）在现实情景下，公众几乎不可避免地在认知上依赖专家。2）公众所付出的认知信任并非是盲目的，他需要对专家的可信度有所警惕和判断；同时，认知信任并不是纯粹的认知问题，它包含道德和制度考量。3）公众应当以先发制人方式处理专家权威，即以专家的专业理由取代个人判断，除非他拥有非专业性的质疑证据。4）建议将“外行专长”纳入专家治理的知识范围，扩展专家群体，构建一种包容性的专家治理。
本研究不仅有助于深化对专家专长和社会认识论的认识，拓展传统认识论研究的问题域和视野，还有望为解决当代社会中的专家信任危机、认知分工和专家治理等突出问题提供重要实践启示。通过综合运用文献研究、比较研究和案例分析等多种研究方法，本研究不仅为理解专家与公众在认知层面的互动提供了理论支撑，也为专家社会认识论研究的未来发展指明了潜在方向，包括汲取批判性认识论研究的合理成分、审慎推动专长民主化以及加强中国语境下的相关研究。
关键词：专家；认知依赖；社会认识论；专家治理
Abstract
As an "epistemology of the real world", social epistemology emphasises that the epistemological examination of truth or knowledge acquisition cannot be confined to the ideal isolated epistemic subject, but should be more attentive to the general public in the context of social reality. Anyone who thinks about it for a moment realises that most of the knowledge and beliefs we possess are acquired from or ultimately attributed to others, and that we have no direct first-hand evidence of them at all. The reason for this is simply because there are so many things we believe that we cannot provide relevant evidence for them all, and our time and resources are mostly limited. This is an inevitable consequence of the division of cognitive labour and the development of specialisation in society. However, experts, by virtue of their specialised training and long-term accumulation of relevant experience, have acquired expertise that is difficult to reach by ordinary people, and have become an important source of reliable knowledge for the public. We can summarise this epistemic relationship between the public and experts simply as an epistemic dependence between experts and laymen. This epistemic dependence not only reflects the objective reality of expertise and the epistemic superiority of experts, but also reveals the essence of epistemic inequality between experts and laymen and the need for epistemic trust.
The research is divided into six chapters. Chapter 1 clarifies the role of experts and the nature of expertise, distinguishes between experts and researchers, and reveals the complexity of experts' expertise and its limitations, in particular the difficulty of meeting the public's expectations when responding to trans-scientific issues. Chapter 2 explores the assumptions of epistemic models of the public's interaction with experts, including the competence model, the defective education model and the cognitive division of labour model, and points out that they all ignore to some extent the epistemic dependence between experts and the public. Chapter 3 delves into the issue of epistemic dependence and epistemic trust, analysing Hardwig's concept of epistemic dependence, highlighting the importance of epistemic trust and its multilevel characteristics, and proposing strategies for identifying trustworthy experts. Chapter 4 addresses the issue of how laymen rationally deal with expert epistemic authority, proposing a limited pre-emptive view of epistemic authority and responding to the potential problems of this view. Chapter 5 proposes the concept of inclusive expert governance within the framework of a democratic society, arguing that "lay expertise" should be integrated to achieve more inclusive and rational expert governance, and reflecting on its theoretical interests, limitations and expert accountability mechanisms. Chapter 6 reconsiders the positive implications and potential challenges of the study of the social epistemology of experts, and looks at possible directions for future development.
After the discussion in the above chapters, this paper draws the following preliminary conclusions: 1) In the realistic situation, it is almost inevitable that the public will rely on the experts epistemologically. 2) The epistemic trust paid by the public is not blind, and they need to be vigilant and judicious of the credibility of the experts; at the same time, the epistemic trust is not purely epistemic, but contains moral and institutional considerations. 3) The public should deal with experts' authority preemptively, i.e. replacing personal judgement with experts' professional justifications, unless he has non-professional evidence to challenge. 4) It is suggested that "lay expertise" should be included in the knowledge scope of the expert governance, expanding the expert community, and constructing an inclusive expert governance.
This research not only helps to deepen the understanding of expert expertise and social epistemology, and expand the problem domain and horizon of traditional epistemological research, but also is expected to provide important practical guidance for solving the prominent problems of expert trust crisis, cognitive division of labour and expert governance in contemporary society. Through a combination of research methods, including literature, comparative studies and case studies, this research not only provides theoretical support for understanding the interaction between experts and the public at the epistemic level, but also points out the potential direction for the future development of research on the social epistemology of experts, including drawing on the reasonable elements of critical epistemology research, cautiously promoting the democratisation of expertise, and strengthening relevant research in the Chinese context.
Keywords: experts; epistemic dependence; social epistemology; expert governance
站内搜索
