孔恩 vs. STS的興起:《科學革命的結構》五十年的驀然回首

作者資訊
傅大為
Daiwie Fu
國立陽明大學科技與社會研究所

中文摘要      

      本文起源自多年前筆者的一個迷團:為何孔恩對SSK/STS頗有意見與感到遺憾?而筆者自己卻毫無感到兩造之間在知性上的溝通障礙。筆者不同意一般的說法,如Hacking說孔恩對STS有大敵意,進而反其向去搜尋與重估許多SSK/STS與孔恩相關的思想史與學術史,其中包括孔恩的學生、敵人、回憶、論戰、與宣言等,企圖建構起一張具多重管道的思想史網絡,過程中也質疑了一些流行說法或敵意評論,如孔恩是STS的國父、孔恩對STS有倒置的Oedipus情結、孔恩對STS有很壞的影響、孔恩是個冷戰時代的保守者、孔恩甚至疏離了他自己的《結構》觀點等,同時筆者也詮釋了孔恩說《結構》不是社會學著作的意義。筆者強調孔恩是個STS重要的先行者,他與STS是個「近親的競爭者」關係。但因緣際會,他站在一個(內vs.外)科學史、科學哲學、科學社會學、科學知識的社會學等多種強大歷史軌跡的交會點上,一個非常難站得直又穩的交會點。在《結構》出版五十年的今天,筆者謙卑地希望回復孔恩一個與STS更具建設性的良性競爭關係。

Kuhn vs. the Rise of STS: the Fiftieth Anniversary of The Structure

Abstract

This paper originates from an old puzzle of mine: why it was so difficult for Kuhn and his SSK/STS admirers or commentators to communicate smoothly with each other. Treating as a complicated web of intellectual history the documents of his students, enemies, interviews, or declarations, I trace through them and reevaluate their multiple channels. I question the validity of the following theses raised in recent years on Kuhn; that Kuhn is the father of STS, has a reverse Oedipus complex on STS younger scholars, exerted a very bad influence on STS, is a conservative in the Cold War era, and I also explain why Kuhn later considered his Structure not a sociology work. The results of this study are that among other forrunners of STS, Kuhn is an important but often misunderstood one, and that he considered himself genealogically as a close relative of but also a serious competitor with SSK/STS. My humble hope in this paper, during the 50th anniversary of publication of Structure, is to recover or to restore Kuhn in a more constructive and fruitful relationship with STS.

引用: 
《科技、醫療與社會》,第18期,頁29-98,2014年04月出版