【作者】 黄伟程；

【导师】 许斗斗；

【作者基本信息】 福州大学 ， 科学技术哲学， 2006， 硕士

【副题名】关于布鲁尔与劳斯两者对科学知识研究的比较

【摘要】 当代社会,科学知识所扮演的角色越来越重要。对科学知识进行研究把握不仅具有重大的理论价值,同时也具有紧迫的现实意义。布鲁尔作为20世纪科学知识社会学最杰出的代表之一,跳出了传统观念的限制,突破了对科学知识本身进行社会学分析的禁区,提出了“强纲领”这一核心理论。在本文中,笔者对科学知识社会学的源流进行了追溯,对该学派的发展和其主要几个代表人物的思想作了简要的介绍,同时着重分析了布鲁尔“强纲领”的理论内涵,特别是其提出的关于知识的概念、科学知识社会学的“四个信条”和所表现出的相对主义特征。劳斯作为新一代科学哲学家,他强调对英美科学哲学与欧洲大陆传统的结合,将科学视为实践的领域,对科学实践的哲学意义进行解释,把实践置于文化中进行考察,从科学的文化研究的角度来对科学的实践问题进行研究,以求对科学进行重新构建。在本文中,笔者分析了他对库恩1和库恩2的解读和他从实践解释学立场所阐发的解释学理论,并特别对劳斯“科学的文化研究”及其中的六个方面主题加以把握。本文在分别分析布鲁尔和劳斯关于科学知识研究成果的基础上,对两者对科学知识的研究意义、研究视角、研究困境等三个方面进行了比较。本文认为布鲁尔与劳斯都具有伟大的探索意义,把整个的科学知识纳入自己的研究视野中,对传统的西方知识论进行了有力的反叛,但他们两者具有共同联系的同时也有明显的区别,而且他们两者的研究均有其不利的难题和困境。本文在批判地审视了布鲁尔和劳斯两者的科学知识思想之后,联系当代社会与中国实际,提出我们要辩证地看待科技价值的问题,要弘扬科学精神,反对科学主义,要实现科学文化主张与人文文化的相互沟通和互补,树立以人为本、人与自然和谐统一的可持续科学发展观。本文对现代知识社会建构新的知识观的研究进路进行了尝试性探索,认为可以把传统的理性维度和布鲁尔的社会维度、劳斯的实践维度结合在一起。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the contemporary society, the role interpreted by scientific knowledge is becoming more and more important, scientific technology has been a great power for history development, giving momentous theoretic value and pressing realistic significance to the studies on and mastery of scientific knowledge. As one of the most outstanding representatives in the field of sociology of scientific knowledge in 20th century, Bloor has broken through the astriction of traditional ideas and the forbidden zone of sociological analyze on scientific knowledge itself and brought forward the core theory of “Strong Program”. In this disquisition, the author casts back the headstream of the sociology of scientific knowledge, briefly presents the development history of the same school and the ideologies of its major representative figures, and emphatically analyses the theoretical connotation of “Strong Program” by Bloor with the focuses on his conception of knowledge, the “four tenets” of sociology of scientific knowledge and its relativistic characteristics. Rouse as a philosopher of science of a new generation emphasizes the integration of England-American scientific philosophy with European traditions, treats science as part of the practice, interprets the philosophic sense of scientific practice, reviews practice from the cultural point of view and research into issues of scientific practice while giving importance to the cultural studies of science, in an attempt to reconstruct the science. In the same disquisition, the author analyses Rouse’s comprehension of KuhnⅠand KuhnⅡand the hermeneutic theory developed by Rouse based on practical hermeneutics, and particularly his theory of “Cultural Studies on Science” and the six subjects contained therein. Comparisons are made in this disquisition three respects as significance, angle of view and puzzledom of studies on scientific knowledge by Bloor and Rouse based upon respective analyses of their studying outcome of scientific knowledge. Great significance in exploration has been given in this disquisition to both Bloor and Rouse for they have brought into their own study scope the scientific knowledge in a whole and strongly revolted to the traditional western epistemology. Nevertheless, distinct differences coexist with the sameness in their studies with both bearing adverse problems and plights. After examining and criticizing the thoughts on scientific knowledge of Bloor and Rouse and bringing into contact with the practicalities of the contemporary society and of China, the author advances a perspective in this disquisition that human beings should look at issues of scientific value from a dialectic point of view, carry forward science spirit, oppose scientism, that scientific culture and human culture should communicate with and mutually benefit each other, and that the standpoint of sustainable development of science should be established with a human-based point of view and with harmonious unification between human and nature. An attempt has been made in this disquisition to explore the cause of the construction and study of a new knowledge view in the modern knowledge society with a viewpoint that the traditional nous dimensionality, Bloor’s social dimensionality and Rouse’s practical dimensionality might be integrated together.更多还原