A Genealogical History of STS and Its Multiple Constructions: To Weave an Extensive Network for Gazing upon the Modern Sciences (limited edition hardback)

Fu, Daiwie

  • PublishedApril, 2019
  • Binding精裝 / 23*15 / 624pages / 部分彩色 / 中文
  • Publisher國立臺灣大學出版中心
  • SeriesNTU & HYI Academic Book Series 8
  • ISBN978-986-350-339-2
  • GPN1010800435
  • Price NT$850 已絕版


本書作者主要關注英、美70年代以來第一、二代的SSK學者、人物、論戰、以及辛勤編織的重重論述:他們與英國哲學家如維根斯坦、社會人類學家如Mary Douglas、還有科學史家如Paul Forman等共同建構的歷史過程。透過這個過程,使我們的STS視野更開闊也更深入,同時強化了我們今天的科技認識、科技與社會的反思、還有科技的政治。本書從東亞與臺灣的STS觀點出發,兼具反身性的角度,打造一個「橫看」近代科學的新視野,並指出過去歐美STS人在回顧自己歷史中的許多問題。此為本書在STS研究領域所作的貢獻。

Why was there a tension between Thomas Kuhn and STS over two decades? In the years of 1960-70s, when wars, protests, and post-colonial developments were engaged and happening, how was the origin of STS, ie., SSK (sociology of scientific knowledge), emerged in this big time? This book rejects the folk legend that Kuhn’s The Structure of scientific revolutions was a major cause of STS’ birth. Rather, it traces a genealogical history for the first two decades of STS, about its emergence, and especially about its multiple historical/social constructions in three orientations: philosophy (eg., of Wittgenstein), social anthropology (eg., of Mary Douglas), and history of science (eg., of Paul Forman). Furthermore, in responding to their times, this book discusses Kuhn’s social activities in early 1970s, and SSK cooperated with historians of science in constructing a “new contemporary critical consciousness” in 1980s. Although this book was about the first two or three generations of STS, about their strategies and debates primarily in UK and US, it was written from a contemporary east Asian STS perspective, and also a reflexive, genealogical viewpoint by someone who is also a STS practitioner in Taiwan. Its aim is to weave and also to recast a new horizon to gaze upon the modern sciences.


A Synopsis of the book
A Genealogical History of STS and its Multiple Constructions: building an extensive network for gazing upon the modern sciences
By Daiwie Fu, National Yang-Ming University
This book is intended to be a genealogical history, close to the Foucauldian sense, of STS and its emergences, its struggles in historical and social contexts, and its alliances and multiple constructions. It does not search for the sacred origin, the essence, or the founding father of STS; rather, it looks into the variable emergences, the unsettled social and academic struggles in contexts, and the unstable multiple constructions in various historical moments. Although the subject of this book is primarily STS in the English-speaking world, it was written from a particular perspective: East Asia and, especially, Taiwan. It was written outside the debates, passions, and contexts of an early STS in formation. But as newly established technoscientistic societies, East Asian countries and their emerging STS communities often encounter problems for which a genealogical history of STS in earlier Euro-American contexts might provide very useful heuristics and important lessons.
Contrary to some commonsensical assumptions, and despite my enormous respect to him, Thomas Kuhn and his works are not taken as the foundation of STS in this book. Rather, I look into the well-known tensions between Kuhn and STS’ early and perhaps still most important branch, Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), exploring the historical situations underlying this somewhat emotional tension and Kuhn’s own continuous reservations regarding STS. The SSK community in its first two decades (1970-1990) was primarily a British community, including the Edinburgh school, Bath school and other groups of scholars. This community and its first two generations of British scholars (especially David Bloor, Barry Barnes, Steven Shapin, Harry Collins, and their associates and students) are examined in some detail to understand their emergence and their textual relations with Kuhn. Once SSK’s relationship with Kuhn is properly dis/located, and once Kuhn is dethroned from the so-called “founding father” label of STS (with which he was very unhappy), this book is then free to explore, with wide-ranging horizons, STS’ various emergences and multiple constructions.
In exploring and studying SSK/STS’ emergences and constructions, this book pursues three different, mostly British roads in STS’ historical constructions: philosophy, social anthropology, and history of science. For the area of philosophy, instead of the stereotyped debates between SSK people and philosophers of science, this book pays much more attention to SSK’s inspirations and alliances with important philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein, Imre Lakatos, and Mary Hesse. For the epistemological foundation of SSK, the philosophies of later Wittgenstein (especially his skepticism on rule-following) and of Hesse (her network model of knowledge) are much more important than Kuhn’s Structure, which was of course also indebted to Wittgenstein. Moreover, the biographical legends of Wittgenstein from his Vienna elementary school teacher’s days to his Cambridge philosophical complications are traced to show some special connections between them which resonate quite well with some major themes of SSK. Furthermore, Lakatos’ novel historical studies of the proofs for Euler’s law for polyhedra, which was superbly linked by David Bloor to Mary Douglas’ “grid-group” theory of cultural groups, are analyzed and their applications to history of science elucidated. This constitutes the first dimension of “historical constructions” of STS.
For the area of British social anthropology, this is an unexplored area concerning the genealogical history of STS—often forgotten or even ignored by later STSers—, but a very important area for the early construction of STS. This book explores the extent to which Evans-Pritchard (on Azande witchcraft), Robin Horton (the analogy between medical “theory” in African tribes and European science), and especially Mary Douglas (a renewed Durkheimian classification and the “grid-group” theory) had impacts on the formation of SSK. Meanwhile, SSK made reverse impacts on the anthropological thinking of Horton and Douglas, especially concerning the symmetrical comparisons between African tribal and European rationality. This is an important case of co-construction between SSK and social anthropology. Mary Douglas also had close ties or alliances with SSK’s Edinburgh school. I then examine the reasons for the gradual decline in influence of British social anthropology on STS around the mid-1990s. It is on this occasion that this book begins studying the difficult relations between SSK and the newly emerged ANT, especially Bruno Latour’s, which brought with it an important internal warfare in the world of STS. As the enthusiastic warrior of a new anthropology of science, Latour challenged Durkheim, Douglas and her contemporary anthropologists, and also her allies in SSK. Thus, we see the emergence of serious criticisms, exchanged between Latour’s Science in Action, his Pasteur piece and his SSK essay reviewers like Shapin and Schaffer, which eventually culminated in the attacks and counter-attacks of the famous epistemological chicken debate in 1992.
The third road for the construction of STS is of course the more familiar history of science. As history of science gradually freed itself from the cold war-styled debate of internal vs. external history in the 1970s, a close alliance developed between history of science and STS. SSK historians of science like Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer led the way. Shapin published his ambitious “history of science and its sociological reconstruction” to defy later Lakatos’ “history of science and its rational reconstruction.” Thus, in the mid-1980s, the most important achievements of STS were mostly in the area of history of science: e.g., The Leviathan and the Air-Pump, The Great Devonian Controversy, and Constructing Quarks. Backed by SSK’s strong programme arguments, historians of science were encouraged to study new subjects that out-sparkled the traditional history of discovering the truth of nature. Conversely, backed by many excellent history of science case studies, SSK gained confidence in developing further sociological insights on science and society. This was a very successful co-construction. Although the congenial relations between STS and history of science might be changing in the 21st century academic world, we know from the three roads studied in this book that STS has held enormous potential in its co-constructions with certain neighboring disciplines. Perhaps this was a very special and successful case of interdisciplinary constructions that deserves even further study.
Having introduced the three roads taken by SSK/STS in its multiple constructions, I then raise the question of what forces have tied STS together despite the various directions of its constructions. This book proposes a strategy for analyzing the unusually large amount of STS book reviews by STSers, which have mostly addressed their own STS colleagues. I draw a few networks of book reviews in different time periods to illustrate the evolving community efforts. It is precisely the activities of gift-giving book reviews, in Marcel Mauss’ sense of “gift,” that constitute the reciprocal obligations of conversation that strengthen STS ties in a field that was and still is full of debates, challenges, passions, and wars. A number of famous book review essays, including Bloor’s review of Lakatos’ Proof and Refutations, Gould’s review of Rudwick’s The Great Devonian Controversy, Shapin’s review of Latour’s Science in Action, Schaffer’s review of Latour’s Pasteurization of France, Latour’s review of Leviathan and the Air-Pump, Traweek’s Beamtimes and Lifetimes, Edgerton’s review of MacKenzie’s Inventing Accuracy, plus a lot more, are discussed in detail and their implications for the field assessed.
After analyzing networks of book reviews as gift exchanges, this book also considers a general model of interests (elaborated by Barnes and Shapin) that is still shared by the SSK people working along the three roads introduced above. Although criticized by later ANT and other STS people, the interests model deserves a fair hearing alongside other STS criticisms, which I pursue in a discussion of Barnes’ theory of interest and ideology (Interests and the Growth of Knowledge) and his debates with the ethnomethodologists. Thus, I argue that it is the sharing of an interest theory by SSK people that creates an additional tie or force that integrates the multiple constructions of SSK.
Last but not least, this book describes in detail the evolving social and political contexts of the 1970s to early 1990s in the UK and in US. The intent is to show the genealogical characters of “STS history” in the book. It is not an ordinary intellectual history, nor is it a straightforward social history of STS. This book traces primarily the social contexts of university campuses and academic worlds: Cold War and Vietnam war, student revolt and academic criticisms of the American military-academic complex, and later, of course, Reagan’s Star Wars. In a horizon slightly broader than STS, first I trace Thomas Kuhn’s critical engagements in investigating the military-academic activities in his Princeton years of the early 1970s. Then I estimate the impact of the influential American historian of science Paul Forman and of another Edinburgh scholar, SSK sociologist Donald MacKenzie, who together formed a “contemporary critical consciousness” in history of science and STS in the late 1980s. It was the moment when Reagan’s Star Wars project had aroused national outrages and criticisms, which included the voices of many STSers and historians of science. This critical consciousness, I argue, is constitutive of the further developments of STS and history of science in the 1990s, and it is also a good representation of how academic STSers and historians of science have addressed the problems of their contemporary societies.
Finally, this book contains two more things. A Postcript, which is a conclusion of sorts, and an Appendix. In the Postcript, I wrote about myself, my personal experience from reading Kuhn and Lakatos to his later engagement with Taiwan’s STS. I also wrote about the strength and peculiar weakness of Taiwan’s STS community and how it concerns and worries me. From there, the reader will understand better why I wrote such a not-small-book about Euro-American STS, a book in Chinese. Taiwan began to construct its STS community, under specific circumstances, only since 2000 (basically HPS and Kuhn before that), knowing quite a bit about ANT and Latour, but knowing relatively little about SSK and the historical constructions of STS itself. The book’s focus instead on the multiple constructions of the early SSK, its strengths and its genealogical characters, is meant to draw out relevant and needed lessons, as a heuristic for STS in Taiwan and East Asia. ,
The second thing is the Appendix. It is about a wider context: the development and prospect of East Asian STS. One interesting feature of Taiwan’s STS is that it was constructed in a historical moment when it actually shared many social concerns with other STS communities in East Asia, like rampant technology controversies, protests against nuclear power and toxic waste, and social support for renewable energies. As in the Postscript, the primary subject of the Appendix is my personal experience, as one of the founders and the founding editor-in-chief of the journal East Asian Science, Technology, and Society (EASTS) since 2007. I outline my involvement in an East Asian STS international journal, which became a valuable means for connecting with STS people in Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China, and with non-East Asian STSers who have specialties in East Asian STS. In addition, I discuss the major themes that have animated debates on STS in/about East Asia. What is “East Asian”? Is it even necessary to work within such a category? How can EASTS grow further into an East Asian STS community with distinction, distinct from but also in connection with, Europe-American counterparts? As both Taiwan’s STS and East Asian STS are emerging and are constructed in complicated processes, this book argues that the early emergence and multiple constructions of SSK in the UK can be instructive to us in many ways: (in the UK) the interests of STS emerged from unconventional sources and wide-ranging, eye-opening paths in the constructions of STS, resulting in great potentials for STS in generating contemporary social actions and practices.
Translated Chapter Titles of the book
Ch.1, Kuhn vs. the Emergence of STS: Puzzles and a New Perspective after 50 Years of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Ch.2, Changing Perspectives, from Folk History to Genealogy
Ch.3, The Philosophy Agenda of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK)
Ch.4, How to Think about Tribal Societies: An Early Anthropological Period of SSK
Ch.5, SSK and History of Science: Growing together like like brother and sister
Ch.6, Multiple Constructions Integrated: Social Interest, Gift, and Politics
Ch.7, Contemporary Political and Social Actions: from Kuhn to SSK
Postscript: From my Personal Experience to Taiwan’s STS
Appendix: The Prospect and Development of East Asian STS
Glossary, Bibliography, and Index

清大物理系畢業,哥倫比亞大學哲學系博士。前任國立陽明大學STS所特聘教授,現為國立陽明大學榮譽教授。研究領域為:科技與社會研究、近代臺灣的性別與醫療、科技與東亞社會、科學史與科學哲學,發表數十篇各領域的中、英、義、韓文論文。著有《亞細亞的新身體:性別、醫療、與近代台灣》(2005)、《回答科學是什麼的三個答案:STS、性別與科學哲學》(2009)、《異時空裡的知識追逐──科學史與科學哲學論文集》(1992)等書,創刊《台灣社會研究季刊》、《科技、醫療與社會》、East Asian Science Technology and Society(EASTS)國際季刊等,並曾擔任EASTS創刊主編(2007-2012)。
第一章 孔恩vs. STS的興起:《科學革命的結構》五十年後的謎團與新視角
第二章 從俗民史到系譜學的視角轉換
第三章 SSK之哲學議程
第四章 思考部落社會:SSK早年的人類學時期
第五章 SSK與科學史:在兄弟般的互動中一起成長
第六章 多重建構的整合性視野:社會利益、禮物、與政治
第七章 當代政治社會的實踐:從孔恩到SSK
  一、High Church反身性的政治社會介入
結語 從我的個人經驗談到臺灣STS
附錄 東亞STS的發展與前景
當年Michel Foucault(傅科)出版《性史》(History of Sexuality)(1978),普通人會以為傅科對人類的性很有興趣,想去瞭解歷代研究人類的性之各種學者如何說,藉此以瞭解性的奧祕。但其實,傅科興趣的方向剛好相反,他其實對人類的性興趣不大,也不想瞭解性的奧祕,反而他對歷代研究人類的性之各種學者、人物、機構、論述很有興趣,也就是要研究:究竟過去歷史是靠著什麼論述與權力的力道,構成了近代歐洲權力的四種性部署(sexual deployment),進而聯合建構了我們今天對人類的性知識、論述與真理。當然,我在2018年完成《STS的緣起與多重建構》的定稿,所討論的主題與內容,及其歷史時空,與傅科的很不一樣,但是此書的主要興趣,也不在於瞭解近代科學的核心意義為何,或說科學真理的奧祕是什麼,反而我對英美70年代以來STS學門的興起感到興趣,並對許多第一、二代的學者、人物、機構如何辛勤建構自己「科學知識的社會學」(Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,後簡稱SSK),積極與一些哲學家、社會人類學家還有科學史家頻繁的互動甚至共同建構——我是被這個歷史過程所吸引。也正是這整個過程,它的社會緣起、它的歷史建構,它如何形塑了我們今天在STS影響下的科技認識、科技論述、與科技的政治,才是我的大興趣。就是這個類似傅科的「反方向」興趣,讓我在寫本書的導言時,想起了傅科的《性史》,並請我的良師傅科作為導言的起手式。
但是,朋友也許會問,我為什麼要對SSK當年第一、二代學者、人物、機構、還有如何辛勤建構SSK這個議題有興趣呢?固然,這些第一、二代的學者,在今天臺灣甚至東亞的脈絡中,仍然被認定是STS學界的大老或資深研究者,他們當年的緣起與多重建構,本來就很值得去理解。不過對我來說,這個主題,還有另外幾層的意義,我簡單描述一下。首先,因為當年我開始做教學研究時,就對Thomas Kuhn(孔恩)的《科學革命的結構》(The Structure of ScientificRevolutions,後簡稱《結構》或SSR)一書相當欣賞與重視,而後來我逐漸從科哲與科學史轉向STS時,這個過程對我而言很順利,不曾有過什麼要跨越鴻溝的困難。但後來我才逐漸理解,孔恩其實與STS並不親近,甚至有時不合,所以,雖然我同時喜歡孔恩與喜歡STS,但孔恩與STS其實彼此問題很多,那麼為什麼我的轉向過程會很順利?這是我困惑的來源。而我越深入到孔恩與STS關係的議題上,就發現越多有趣的問題。所以,要解決我的困惑還有回應那些問題,除了研究孔恩外,也需要從第一、二代的STS人的文獻與想法著手。
其次,在解決困惑與問題的過程中,我又逐漸發現了兩件事:(一)當年SSK的元老們在發展與建構的過程中,其實很少提到孔恩,很少對孔恩有種STS「奠基者」的情感。(二)但是許多STS之外,或是STS朋友的學者們,卻常常不假思索、理所當然地就認為孔恩是STS的奠基者。有趣的是這兩件事彼此有很強的潛在衝突。本書開頭的書寫,就是在解答自己的困惑、分析STS與孔恩的問題關係,特別是由上述那兩件事的衝突來開展的。開展之後的成果,也是本書的基本論點:STS的發展,很少用到孔恩的資源,而且孔恩並不太喜歡STS的種種發展,但另一方面,STS之外或之友的學者們,常述說著一種STS的俗民史(folk history),強調STS奠基者孔恩的地位,而訴說這些俗民史,往往有著另外有意或無意的功能。之後,本書下一步的作法是,讓孔恩從STS奠基者的位置離開,成為STS的一位謙虛的先行者,如此,脫離了孔恩俗民史的籠罩,我們才能更仔細而清楚地去觀察STS的緣起與建構。於是,本書的後續重點,就是在發掘SSK當年的緣起、如何走自己的路,並終於能看到SSK的三條因緣之路,或說三條共同建構之路。這就開始了筆者長期編織與打造這本書的一段歲月。以上,在簡單交代了筆者書寫此書的緣起與早期的問題意識後,本導言下面,會更加仔細地去說明本書主體(共七章)的內容概要,包括進一步說明本書的緣起與問題意識。記得有位日本STS朋友曾問我,這樣一個討論英國SSK的緣起與建構的STS專著,為什麼不用英文來書寫並在國際學界出書?這是個好問題。自然,用母語來書寫,比較迅速而達意,何況,如我前面所提到,這樣一個主題,是很值得讓臺灣、中國乃至華人世界的讀者容易閱讀與理解的。若是用英文來書寫出書,自然主要讀者成為英語世界的學者,而目前歐美STS第一代的學者很多都已經退休,又碰上《結構》出版的五十週年紀念(2012),還有愛丁堡學派成立的五十週年紀念(2016),我們期待將有更多的回顧與STS當代史著作的出現。所以,本書若用英文書寫,可能也只是成為更多STS歷史著作中的一本,同時也失去了它在華人乃至東亞社會中的特別意義。反之,作為一位東亞的STS人,立身於東亞以及臺灣當代STS的問題意識中,我寧可在現階段以中文書寫,一方面提升華人世界對STS認識的程度,另一方面也為未來具有臺灣或東亞特色的STS理論來鋪路。還有很重要的一點,此書的重點並不是在對華文讀者「介紹」孔恩與SSK,那種書或翻譯,臺灣與中國都已經有一些了。本書是從一個具有東亞臺灣觀點來研究SSK的緣起與建構,同時也是一個具有類似SSK反身性的研究。所以,在書中的不少地方,筆者自覺對這個主題做出了重要的貢獻,並且指出目前歐美STS在回顧與檢討自己歷史中的許多問題。
既然談到了本書可能的讀者,我在這裡就先簡單說明一下此書預設的幾種讀者。(一)對孔恩、《結構》、以及他/它與STS的關係有興趣的朋友。雖然本書的主角是英國的SSK,但它大概是STS裡面與孔恩前前後後的思想,還有經典《結構》最接近且互動最頻繁的流派了。本書希望還給孔恩一個公平的天地,讓讀者理解冷戰脈絡下的《結構》,還有孔恩與SSK真實而細部關係的歷史演進。(二)對STS與科學史、STS與哲學關係有興趣的朋友。本書以第五章為主,花了整章以上的篇幅來談科學史的當代史學史、科學史與STS在當代歐美政治社會脈絡下的共構關係,並稍稍旁及技術史。另外,本書第三章討論SSK與哲學家的有趣歷史,SSK如何策略性地與哲學建立重要關係,包括了後期Ludwig Wittgenstein(維根斯坦)哲學的部份、早期Imre Lakatos(拉卡圖)的數學史與數學哲學,還有劍橋科哲家Mary Hesse(赫賽)的科學哲學。原來,SSK的發展有其重要的哲學之翼,有這些重要哲學家的守護,而沒有一般科學哲學家與強綱領維護者彼此辯論不休的刻板印象。(三)對當代社會中的科技有興趣的人類學家與社會學家。本書第四章談SSK早年的人類學時期,談SSK如何思考部落社會,還有非洲的部落思考與歐洲科學理性如何比較等問題。這是相當少見但又十分重要的題材,這也是人類學家走進科技議題最有趣的一條路。包括在第六章中我以「禮物」的概念來分析STS的大量書評,以及其所導致的STS社群建構。再者,第三章也談了過去的科學社會學、知識社會學與SSK社群浮現的關係,而第六章則特別談到SSK的社會學與利益理論。何況作為一種學派研究導向,SSK基本上興起於知識社會學與科學社會學,所以社會學家也很合適來瞭解這條從社會學通向「科技與社會」之路。(四)對科學在當代世界的意義與政治、對科學如何走過高科技戰爭頻繁的20世紀有興趣的讀者。從60、70年代美國反戰反核武的學生運動以來,冷戰時代的核武科技以及它如何形塑了美國校園中的科學研究,還有科學史及STS學者後來如何來研究與介入這個英美冷戰時代的大科技爭議,特別還有孔恩本人的介入。這些題材的討論,大致散佈在本書的第一、第五章,但特別集中的是第七章。它同時也涉及了二戰後的高能物理史與大科學實驗室的社會意義。(五)最後,但也是最關鍵的,是對STS本身及其歷史發展有興趣的讀者、師生、以及我親愛的STS學者們。
首先,本書所涵蓋的時空範圍是STS在英國興起的第一個二十年左右。從1970年代初到1980年代中期左右,英美、甚至歐洲的STS主流就是SSK,雖然有其他較小的、或剛興起的流派甚至特立獨行的個人,則非本書所能仔細涵蓋或甚至有興趣者,何況,只有早年的SSK才會與STS史前史中的孔恩《結構》產生密切的互動與折衝。所以STS興起的第一個二十年,本書均以SSK為代表,當年STS的少數其他,本書只有在和SSK產生重要互動時才會提起,如1987年Bruno Latour(拉圖)出版了可說代表行動者網絡理論(ANT)興起的Science in Action一書。到了90年代,ANT發展迅速,STS裡的一些其他流派,如俗民方法論、如社會世界理論等,都開始往前衝刺,STS逐漸進入一個多元競逐的新局面,各種問題也更形複雜,而非本書當初的規劃所能涵蓋,只能俟諸後來的能者了。
第一章 孔恩vs. STS的興起:《科學革命的結構》五十年後的謎團與新視角(摘錄)
在孔恩過世前不到一年,他在希臘的雅典大學作了一個長達70頁的深度訪談(PHP),內容幾乎涵蓋了孔恩的一生。不同於其他較短的訪談,孔恩過世前同意將此訪談放入他的論文集Essential Tension(1977)的續集The Road Since Structure(2000)中,與該書孔恩其他的正式哲學論文,等量齊觀。為了思考與討論本章的「孔恩vs. STS」之謎,筆者選擇從這篇訪談挑出三點頗有意義的線索來開始回溯,也就是說,本章將從一位老物理學家的回首開始談起。
(一)在PHP,如同以前一樣,孔恩確認他的《結構》一書是個直接以「科學社群」內部發展為焦點的「科學內在史」作品,甚至同時,他也曾間接提到自己本身就是個「內在科學史家」(Kuhn 2000: 50)。不過,當年當他收到科學史家Alexandre Koyré(夸黑)的信,說他的《結構》一書把科學內在史與外在史連在一起了,孔恩看了一開始覺得奇怪,因為那並不是《結構》這部內在史研究在做的事。但孔恩繼而想到因為這是來自他仰慕的夸黑的肯定,他就覺得非常的高興(p. 286)。所以,即使到了晚年,他與SSK的隔閡眾所周知,孔恩仍不反對《結構》有可能可以連接上科學外在史或社會學,只是,他的確有個傾向,越來越認為自己是科學內在史家,而與《結構》時期的孔恩有點不同。這點,應該與他要與SSK做「劃界工作」(boundary work)有關,本章後面會逐步闡明。
(二)當問起孔恩過去跟他的研究生們(pp. 303-305),他基本上只舉了柏克萊時代的兩位研究生John Heilbron(約翰.海布朗)與佛曼。他仍記得後來在普林斯頓教書時,讀到Forman(1971)的“Weimar Culture, Causality, and Quantum Theory, 1918-1927”一文,因為喜愛這篇文章,而主動在科學史研究所的布告欄貼上這一句話:「這是他自從發現了夸黑以來,最令人振奮的一篇論文!」當然這篇文章不可能全對,但孔恩認為佛曼在面對批評時,讓步太多了。不過,無論是海布朗或是佛曼,他們後來做科學史,都遠離了孔恩做科學史的那種方式,而大部份做的是科技與社會導向的研究、或是關於科學的社會環境與機構等。雖然這多少是科學史領域的自然發展,但他並不很喜歡都是那樣。在這個意義上,孔恩覺得,他不曾生產過任何知性上的孩子。這令他尷尬,但或許這也是因為人們總是要離開他們的教授—父親吧。當時在柏克萊還是個大學生的Jed Buchwald是唯一的例外。孔恩很少談他在普林斯頓時期的學生,是有點奇怪,當問起他在MIT語言與哲學研究所的學生時,他也說他沒有哲學的學生,甚至他有點將他們趕開(p. 305),後來他反省起來是有點不負責任。孔恩的說法或許是,他曾經對哲學很有興趣,但後來因為哈佛的工作而接觸科學史,終於寫就了《結構》並從此進入論辯的時代,這使得他一直覺得自己是哲學界的局外人,並不有益於要找哲學工作的年輕人來作他的學生(pp. 305-306)。
(三)在PHP的訪談裡,孔恩也難得的談到他的少年時期,還有後來在普林斯頓大學的學運時期與學生們的交往經驗。受孔恩具有社會意識的雙親的影響,從六年級到九年級,他在一間受杜威「進步教育」(progressive education)運動影響的Hessian Hills初中就讀,該中學頗有些左派老師,鼓勵同學要做和平主義者,強調獨立的心靈與思考,並養成對自己的信心。後來孔恩到MIT教書時,發現許多大學畢業生從未寫過10頁左右的報告,而他自己在六、七年級時就寫過至少一篇25頁的報告。少年孔恩在Hessian Hills參加過很多示威遊行,如May Day等,還曾被紐約報紙報導過,當時他也曾苦思是否要簽署學生的反戰連署(包括對自己的國家)等(PHP: 256-258)。但後來孔恩離開Hessian Hills,一直到哈佛畢業,他雖然仍然保持著自由派的信念,卻從此以後不再是一個社會運動者(activist),為此,孔恩有時覺得頗尷尬(p. 266)。到了1969至1970年,普林斯頓學生因為美國開始轟炸寮國而爆發學運時,曾有許多基進學生因為《結構》的科學革命說法而極為仰慕他,當然他們同時也反對常態科學的權威性。所以在一些運動團體的演講中,孔恩常在激動的學生們面前被迫說他的書中並沒有說哪些哪些。《結構》在當年的基進團體中被誤解,這使得孔恩的學生有時都需要對他們作解釋,才能替孔恩解圍:就科學權威傳統的創造性而言,「這其實是本很深刻的保守著作」。為此,孔恩十分遺憾,多年來覺得自己被很糟糕的對待(p. 308)。為什麼遺憾?在本書的第七章,孔恩的另一種社會實踐中,筆者會對這個問題作新的發揮。
從PHP選出以上三點,可以看到孔恩細緻又複雜的生命史。他不是一個直截了當的科學內在史家—本章前後會幾次回到這個問題來,或者像一些科學哲學家一樣,毫不掩飾對SSK強綱領的厭惡。雖然,質問某一位科技史家本質上究竟是外在史還是內在史家?這個幾乎是個冷戰史學史中的政治問題,在後冷戰時代的科學史界已經不再重視,也是Leviathan and The Air Pump兩位SSK歷史學家作者在80、90年代一致想要排除與轉化的問題,但是在壯年孔恩與SSK興起的冷戰時代,此問題的確顯示著歷史學家們的立場與存在感受。筆者需要對這些作者們的劃界工作作歷史分析,孔恩與STS興起的關係才可以更清楚。
就本章的問題意識而言,孔恩幾個學生中的發展,大概是佛曼近乎科學社會史的研究與立場最為相關,後續的影響力也很大。我們仔細看看孔恩對他學生佛曼的態度,其實十分有趣。佛曼的成名作〈威瑪文化與量子理論〉(後簡稱〈威瑪文化〉)這篇長文,其中的論證,是在強調一次大戰戰敗後德國威瑪文化中的生命哲學(Lebensphilosophie)、Oswald Spengler所喚起的對整個西方文明的沒落感、不再重視理性而強調直覺等傾向,如何強烈影響到許多德國物理學家對古典力學與古典量子理論中因果律的態度,甚至給讀者感覺說,他把一個劃時代的量子力學革命(1925至1927年)的前身(即古典量子理論),說成是許多德國物理學家因為面對強勢的德國戰敗後的主流文化,主動或被動地在海森堡或薛丁格提出令人滿意的、蘊含非因果律的量子力學之前,就早早宣揚非因果律(1918至1925年),以迎合那種主流文化氣氛的尷尬歷史因緣。雖然筆者不否認佛曼有很強的論據,但讀來這種論證風格不似夸黑、孔恩以來細緻的科學理論演變分析,而更像當年的莫頓在分析17世紀的科學、技術與社會,或如孔恩在討論文藝復興的新柏拉圖主義如何影響了哥白尼的天文學取向。不過要注意的是,佛曼這篇看似科學文化史的論文,其實也是奠基於〈威瑪文化〉發表前的幾篇量子力學史專技的論文。再者,成長於60年代柏克萊反戰文化中的佛曼,十五年後聲調更高,把討論場景放到二次大戰及之後的美國物理學社群,寫了另一篇爆炸性的長文“Behind Quantum Electronics:National Security as Basis for Physical Research in US, 1940-60”(Forman 1987),鋪天蓋地的收集資料來討論當代美國軍方如何形塑菁英大學中的科技研究議題。佛曼強調美國物理學界,如何在二戰以來,大肆接受國防部與海軍部的經費,並接受其形塑與導引,一些人並在後來樂於成為雷根星戰計畫的智庫前鋒。就這樣,佛曼成為了美國60年代反叛的一代中的學術名家,一個孔恩本來有機會站但是不願意去站的位置。而像〈威瑪文化〉、〈量子電子學的背後〉等這種論文,與孔恩當年充滿哲學反思意涵的《結構》一書,相去已不可道里計。那麼,為什麼孔恩要大為稱讚佛曼呢?答案之一或許是,其實孔恩自己過去也寫過類似格式的科學文化史,只要論證精詳,並且能包括到一些科技的知識細節,孔恩自己當然是接受的,雖然他自己寫的不多。
再者,從孔恩的前—《結構》時代開始,他在哈佛教通識教育的成果《哥白尼革命》(1957)一書,不正是強調當時社會中有太陽崇拜意涵的新柏拉圖主義運動,對哥白尼天文學的影響力嗎?而那不也是哥白尼要放棄托勒密系統的真正原因嗎?即使當年孔恩還沒有典範這概念,科學文化史的寫法,他已經頗善為之—即使到今天,《哥白尼革命》仍然是西方少數最暢銷的科學史教科書之一。後來的《必要張力》(1977)論文集中,我們仍有機會看到孔恩早年費力寫就的〈能量守恆作為同時發現的一例子〉這篇極有份量的科學文化史論文,強調了浪漫主義的Naturphilosophie哲學思維,在19世紀對許多不同的物理學家的影響,繼而多方導致了能量守恆的同時發現。所以,在《結構》序言第10頁的註4,孔恩特別整理了他過去在科學社會史上的研究成果,包括《哥白尼革命》,並很著名地寫道:「所以,只有對於這本書所討論的問題而言,科學史外在因素的角色是次要的。」(底線為筆者所加)。不過,即使在他的《結構》一書中,雖然他對於科學的理解已經有跳躍性的發展,不同於之前在哈佛的時代,孔恩仍然常引用到這些科學文化史的例子。這表示,《結構》一書的思想架構,雖然被當年孔恩定位為科學內在史的著作,也沒有特別強調外在文化對西方科學發展的影響,但科學典範,仍然與社群外在的時代文化氛圍,是相通的。這條通路,也成為了後來孔恩在《結構》的〈後記〉中解釋如典範這樣的「學科矩陣」(disciplinary matrix)時,呼應了矩陣中的一兩個重要的元素,如形上學的承諾、模型、價值。
在討論到科學內在、外在史的立場選擇問題時,我們可以再思考一下當年孔恩寫新柏拉圖主義如何影響哥白尼的著名論點。《結構》時代的孔恩,把新柏拉圖主義的影響,看成是外在史、起碼是文化史,而非科學社群內部的歷史。這是孔恩當年的定位。不過,今天從一個科學史研究的角度,我們仍然可問,是否新柏拉圖主義,從文藝復興時代的觀點來看,其實本來就與科學「同屬一個文化」,所以也算科學內部的歷史,而孔恩當年難道犯了他最希望科學史家要避免的Whiggish(輝格觀點:以今觀古—時代錯誤)的弊病?不過,筆者認為這個問題仍然頗有爭議,但本書也不是仔細討論那問題的地方,目前的重點其實在孔恩他自己劃界的歷史意義。一個相關的問題是,論者又以為,如果新柏拉圖主義算是外在史,那麼是否夸黑也算是外在史家了?畢竟,在他的From the Close World to the Infinite Universe(後簡稱From the Close World)一書中(Koyré 1957),他從教會哲學家古薩的尼可拉開始,把17世紀的哲學和科學放在一起(互為因果),討論到劍橋的新柏拉圖主義者Henry Moore(亨利.摩爾)、教會哲學家N. Malebranche(馬勒布朗雪)對牛頓的空間觀念的影響等等,但是,我們一般不是說,夸黑是科學內在史的典範嗎?不過筆者覺得,這個問題其實也可以理解,From the Close World一書,是夸黑比較特別的一本學術演講集的擴充,他為了要描述與17世紀科學觀念大轉換同時發生的整體觀念革命,因為涉及到宇宙模型與目的的整個改變,除了科學家之外,夸黑也看到當時的哲學家、神學家也多少都參與了這個辯論,故而此書才討論了許多宗教、哲學、與科學(pp. viii-ix),而與他成名的內在史專著如Galileo Studies不一樣。再說,連孔恩也承認,其實夸黑不是個嚴格意義下的科學內在史家,因為他常強調哲學與宗教對科學的影響,他以內在史知名,應該主要是在反對1930年代以來蘇聯格森式的科學社會經濟史罷了,見本章後面。
2007年,海金在臺灣曾說,許多年輕的STS人會說:「好吧,我們乾脆不理Rothschild Lecture,但孔恩仍然是我們的國父(founding father)。」海金就稱讚他們,說「這是個非常健康的反應。」(Hacking 2008: 269)但是,1991年孔恩在Rothschild Lecture(“The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science”)裡面,究竟說了什麼?1991年,孔恩已經是美國科學哲學學會的會長。經過他多年的努力與辯論,似乎,科學哲學界對孔恩的傳統敵意已經轉為尊敬,或許90年代是他回頭來處理《結構》思想與SSK/STS關係的時機了?而今天我們知道,一般SSK人、包括海金,都習慣性地把孔恩的Rothschild Lecture看成是一篇敵視SSK的文字,但是,筆者有另外不同的看法。
其實,Rothschild Lecture裡的孔恩是從一個分庭抗禮的立場開始評論強綱領,並指出他和強綱領分道揚鑣的關鍵,同時,孔恩作了點自我反省,然後強調SSK是個真實的哲學挑戰。孔恩首先說了一句常被人誤解而隨意引用的話「一些人覺得強綱領的宣稱是荒謬的:是個解構到發狂的例子,我也曾如此想」(Kuhn 2000: 110),但幾句話之後,孔恩領悟道:
The strong program and its descendants have repeatedly been dismissed as uncontrolled expressions of hostility to authority in general and science in particular. For some years I reacted somewhat that way myself. But I now think that easy evaluation ignores a real philosophical challenge.(2000: 111)
之後,他才企圖提出解決整個問題的「另一個進路」(pp. 119-120)。不過,我們首先要瞭解,孔恩到底讀過多少早期的SSK/STS研究?在廣泛閱讀過孔恩的著作與檔案書信訪談之後,筆者的估計是布洛爾的強綱領(1976)、應該還瀏覽過巴恩斯的《孔恩與社會科學》、謝平與夏佛的LAP,當然再加上佛曼的〈威瑪文化〉、魯維克的The Great Devonian Controversy(1985),不多,但多少都是經典名著。現在從Rothschild Lecture看來,孔恩使用利益、權力的概念,似乎仍停留在個人利益,或巨觀的政治、外交與軍事權力等層次,而並沒有仔細瞭解到SSK後來對利益概念的仔細分析,例如早在1982年謝平的分析與整合,見本書第五章第二節。雖然孔恩曾「發現了」高明的法國科學史學者夸黑,強烈影響了他,但對於法國後結構以來的傅科傳統,乃至後來影響到英美SSK研究內涵的其他傳統,例如英國的社會人類學,孔恩的瞭解頗為有限。在這個意義下,孔恩對強綱領的批評,基本上是認為他們把利益無限上綱。雖然在科學中利益有其地位,孔恩理解,但是理性與邏輯往往有其基本範圍,甚至,理性與利益二者是個零和的情況,不能把利益與社會因素無限上綱,擠壓到理性與自然。順著前面孔恩區分科學內在、外在史的討論,孔恩認為莫頓的科學社會學,從科學社群的外在社會因素來分析對科學機構或價值的影響,貢獻不小,但是後來的SSK,孔恩(1983)有時稱之為「內在的科學社會學」(internal sociology of science,見後),則企圖也用同樣的社會學解釋模型如利益,來分析科學社群內部的理論或知識發展,則顯然對科學社群內部的理性產生零和的擠壓作用。
可是,如果我們把傅科的論述與系譜學、還有他討論真理的政治經濟學等議題考慮進來,那麼權力/利益,與理性/邏輯的關係,往往就不是同一層次上的零和遊戲,而可能彼此屬不同層次、有上下層交疊而可能互相影響的新情況。當然,愛丁堡的布洛爾本人也不見得同意這個不同層次的情況,不過,他強調的強綱領,部份是源於社會學家涂爾幹的原始知識分類(primitive classification),質疑當今學界把「科學」當作「聖域」(the sacred),不能作社會分析,這本來是為了知識社會學不要淪為錯誤社會學,要哲學給社會學留下可以討論「科學知識內容」的空間。至於巴恩斯仔細談利益的問題,當然也不只是個人及其社經利益或意識形態而已。他的觀念部份來自Habermas(哈伯瑪斯)的human interest概念,也部份來自馬克思思想而進一步發展出來。而物理學家出身的孔恩,當觸及了歐洲廣泛而複雜的社會思想傳統後,要如何確保科學理性、維護大自然的份量,可能就會是一種焦慮吧。到了1985年,謝平與夏佛的SSK經典Leviathan and The Air Pump出版,一個更為精細而全面的SSK典範於焉成形,幾乎快成為《結構》之後的新經典了。