【作者】 卢艳君；

【导师】 马来平；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 马克思主义理论与思想政治教育， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 默顿穷其毕生精力在科学社会学领域创建了一系列颇具影响力的学说和理论,为我们深刻理解科学的社会运行提供了一个成功范式,其学术成就在美国乃至整个国际社会学界得到了一致公认,被尊称为科学社会学之父。曾几何时,以结构功能分析为理论基础,以经验研究为特征的默顿范式在科学社会学界独领风骚,占据统治地位。尽管随着SSK的兴起,默顿范式在科学社会学中的主导地位已被消解并被迅速地边缘化,但它所散射出的耀眼理性光辉及其在科学社会学界和其他相关学术领域所产生的深远历史影响是永存的。鉴于默顿科学社会学在国际科学社会学界曾长期占据重要地位,现在应该是对它进行系统回视的时候了。国内外对默顿科学社会学的关注从未间断过,并作出了不少有益的探讨。但从总体情况来看,这些研究还比较分散,基本上处于“化整为零”的研究状态中,反映默顿思想整体概貌的成果相对偏少。学者们多限于从某一角度对默顿科学社会学的具体理论给予微观层面的研究,几乎没有从宏观上系统分析其思想体系内在一以贯之的精神内核,不利于我们对默顿科学社会学的整体定位和把握。此外,时下科学的自主性在不同国家和地区遭到了不同程度的践踏和破坏,系统研究默顿思想中有关科学自主性的观点及其捍卫和阐扬科学的理性与客观性的精神内核,尤其具有重要的现实意义。本文主要运用文献分析法、历史与逻辑相结合的方法和比较法对默顿科学社会学思想进行分析,试图解决以下问题:默顿科学社会学从科学的知识社会学转向科学制度社会学的原因是什么?它的研究重心何在,要解决什么基本问题,其思想体系是否存在一以贯之的主线?默顿科学社会学的局限性及其缘由何在?它和SSK的根本分歧及其实质是什么?在陷入理论困境之际,它是否会被SSK所取代,亦或与之发生整合?默顿科学社会学是否还有继续存在的价值,它对我国学术界有何启示?围绕这些问题,本文沿着默顿思考问题的一贯思路,以作为一种社会制度的科学为切入点,集中对默顿科学社会学的研究重心、精神内核、局限性及其缘由和未来发展趋向等问题进行系统深入地探讨,并取得了一定的创新性成果。论文提出并着力论证了贯穿默顿科学社会学思想的一条主线是通过强调科学制度的自主性,以捍卫和阐扬科学的理性与客观性,默顿及其学派的工作基本上是围绕着捍卫和阐扬科学的理性与客观性这一主旨而展开的。在默顿科学社会学陷入困境的情况下,本文结合SSK理论和社会与境以及与之密切相关的问题,对其未来发展趋向作出了理论上的探讨。以上有关论文的选题来由与意义、研究现状,基本思路、研究方法及创新之处的内容将在导言里展开论述。本文包括导言、正文和余论三大部分,正文部分有五章。第一章梳理了默顿科学社会学的研究路径。由于理论背景和时代背景的变化,默顿科学社会学在不同时期的研究重点有所改变。根据默顿在不同时期所关注问题的不同,本文将其思想发展大致划分为四个阶段:初创期:20世纪30年代。这一时期主要致力于对促成近代科学兴起或制度化的各种社会因素进行动态分析,尚未形成对科学的独立的社会学解释,其理论框架属于传统知识社会学范畴。转折期:20世纪40至50年代。纳粹德国践踏科学的事件以及帕森斯的结构功能主义理论对默顿产生了极大影响。默顿通过扬弃传统知识社会学,构建其功能分析范式,确立了科学社会学的方向,即把科学作为一种社会制度,转入对科学自身结构的研究,提出了科学规范理论和科学奖励思想。繁荣期:20世纪60至70年代中期。随着科学本身成为引发社会问题的富源,默顿的工作得到了越来越多学者的关注,逐渐形成了以默顿为代表的默顿学派。这一时期主要致力于研究科学的社会结构,对作为一种社会制度的科学的评价机制、奖励制度、交流方式、分层结构等进行了多侧面的研究,属于静态结构—功能分析。衰落期:20世纪70年代后期至今。出于全文布局上的考虑,笔者将有关衰落期的内容放到了第五章。第二章分析了默顿科学社会学的理论前提、研究重心及精神内核。首先,结合默顿科学社会学的发展转向思考默顿科学社会学中的“科学”的涵义。在初创期,默顿主要是把科学作为一种知识形态来分析它与社会存在的关系,这时的科学是一种狭义的科学,专指自然科学。默顿科学社会学思想发生转向后,其主要研究的是作为一种社会制度的科学,它具有自己独特的规范结构,并以“扩展被证实了的知识”为价值目标,从这点来看,又与作为知识形态的科学有了相通之处。其次,从默顿科学社会学的基本内容,即科学与社会的互动研究、科学的社会结构研究以及学科或专业兴衰的研究中挖掘默顿科学社会学的研究重心。默顿仅在“影响”而非“根本动力”的意义上谈论社会因素对科学发展的作用;默顿及其学派强调让科学制度按照自己的行为规范、奖励制度、评价机制等运行,以避免和防止各种人为的和社会的因素对科学的干扰和控制;同时,他们又指出学科或专业有自身的发展规律,外界因素的影响只有通过学科或专业本身才能起作用。这些内容从不同方面体现了默顿科学社会学的研究重心在于强调科学的自主性。再次,从默顿的实证主义认识论立场入手分析了其科学社会学思想的精神内核。默顿在科学知识问题上沿袭了实证主义的科学观,认为社会因素只能影响科学发展的速度及其关注焦点的转移,并不影响科学知识的内容。逻辑实证主义从知识论角度强调了理性精神,默顿科学社会学则从社会学角度将科学视为一种社会制度,通过强调科学制度的自主性,保证扩展被证实了的知识这一科学制度性目标的实现,对科学的理性精神予以了加强。可以说,默顿科学社会学思想的精神内核就是捍卫和阐扬科学的理性与客观性。第三章探讨了默顿科学社会学的局限性及其缘由。首先,从微观上结合构成默顿科学社会学基本理论框架的科学规范及科学奖励思想,分别探讨了它们各自的局限性及其遭到的批判。接着,从宏观上分析并概括了默顿科学社会学的几点不足之处:对主观因素和社会因素的重视不够,对科学制度与其他社会制度互动的考察欠缺以及对非精英科学家的分析薄弱。最后,尝试从默顿科学社会学赖以建立的哲学基础追溯这些局限性的缘由。这里先考察了默顿科学社会学的哲学基础——实证主义认识论和结构—功能主义方法论的现实状况,结果发现,实证主义科学观的科学划界、价值中立、经验证实原则等核心信条已遭到了历史主义和后现代科学哲学的颠覆。结构功能分析法强调功能相对于结构的优先性和共同价值体系相对于个人动机和行为的优先性,这就排斥了系统中多样性结构的存在,忽视了个人的能动性和特殊性,受到了社会交换理论等的批驳。然后,回到默顿科学社会学的局限性进行分析,发现对默顿规范的批判主要来自于经验证据的反驳、反规范的存在等,实质上这是对结构功能分析法的诘难的一种延伸。默顿规范延用了实证主义科学观,将技术规范看成是普遍有效的,忽视了技术规范运用的历史性和情景性,因而受到了批判。默顿强调科学奖励制度的认知强化功能,却忽视了其经济功能,受到了来自李克特的“两类交换系统”、马尔凯的“信息交换理论”及拉图尔和伍尔加的“信用循环模式”的挑战,这事实上是社会交换理论对结构功能理论批判的一种扩展。宏观层面上若干不足之处的根源也可归结于默顿科学社会学之哲学基础的局限性。第四章考察了来自SSK的挑战。SSK正是以批判默顿科学社会学为发展契机的,它对默顿科学社会学主张捍卫科学的理性与客观性,进而悬置科学知识的做法很不满,认为其不是一种真正意义上的科学社会学。基于自然主义的经验主义和相对主义前提,SSK集中批判了传统科学观,认为所有知识都应毫无例外地成为社会学研究的合法领域,其全部工作重心就在于说明科学知识的形成过程、科学认识的成果无不包含着社会因素。默顿及其学派对SSK的批判作出了回应,他们一方面承认建构主义进路的科学社会学变得越来越有影响了,同时批判SSK的极端相对主义立场片面夸大了社会因素的作用。将默顿科学社会学与SSK进行比较,不难发现二者的根本分歧是能否对科学知识的内容进行社会学分析,分歧的实质在于社会因素在科学知识的产生中到底起多大作用。SSK对科学知识的社会性作出了说明,认为自然界在科学知识的建构中很少或几乎不起作用。本文认为,虽然科学的认识过程中充斥着各种社会因素,社会因素也的确在科学认识和科学知识的形成过程中起着重要作用,但这并不能说明科学知识的内容是由非理性的或社会的因素所决定的。从根本上说,知识是对客观实在的反映,受客观实在的制约,离开自然客观物质对象的认识是难以想象的。第五章思考了默顿科学社会学的未来发展趋向问题。首先分析了默顿科学社会学和SSK的当前境况。SSK的兴起促使默顿科学社会学逐渐衰落了,并迫使其作出一定的调整和让步。默顿及其学派开始克服简单化和理想化的实证主义科学观,默顿丢弃了功能主义的标签,而赞成结构分析的范式,默顿的弟子则提出建构主义的功能论和实在论的建构主义对默顿理论方案进行了修订。他们开始着手研究科学实际运作过程中的社会因素,并对科学的社会结构和认知结构交界处的问题进行了探讨,但其研究更多是思想总结性而非开拓性的。与此同时,SSK的认识论相对主义遭到来自不同方面的猛烈抨击,社会学家和哲学家集中批判了强纲领所倡导的对称性原则、相对主义知识观和社会学主义的野心。SSK在解释社会因素如何影响科学知识的具体内容时显得力度不足,加之相对主义是自我驳斥的,SSK面临反身性难题,其对称性实则不对称性,SSK内部出现争吵并开始分裂。在这种情况下,默顿科学社会学的未来发展趋向将如何呢?本章围绕与此密切相关的几个问题:“默顿规范在大科学时代是否必要及其如何扩展”,“SSK取代或与默顿科学社会学发生整合的可能性”,“后SSK的实践化转向对默顿科学社会学的启示”,“默顿科学社会学的思想遗产”展开讨论。本文指出,SSK并不能否定默顿科学社会学继续存在的价值。默顿科学社会学无论在经验部分还是理论部分都为我们留下了宝贵的思想遗产,其思想的精神内核是通过强调科学制度的自主性,捍卫和阐扬科学的理性与客观性,它焕发着科学的理性光辉和理想的感召力,值得永远期待。余论部分论述了默顿科学社会学对我国学术界的启示。首先简要论述了默顿科学社会学的思想体系和研究方法对我国科学社会学的借鉴意义;接着,讨论了默顿科学社会学强调科学制度的自主性,以捍卫和阐扬科学的理性与客观性的思想,对当前我国的科技发展及其体制改革的启示。更多还原

【Abstract】 Robert K.Merton has created a series of influential theories in the field of Sociology of Science with his whole life and these theories provide a successful paradigm for our deep understandings of social operation of Science. Merton’s academic achievements have been recognized widely in the field of international sociology, who is known as the father of Sociology of Science. Once, the Merton Paradigm had played a leading role in Sociology of Science, whose theory basis is structure-functional analysis and whose characteristic is the empirical research. However, with the rise of SSK, its dominant status has been eliminated and marginalized. In view of the important position of Merton’s Sociology of Science, it’s time to review it systematically. The scholars have made many helpful discussions. However, these studies are still relatively decentralized on the whole and essentially in a piecemeal research state. The results that reflect the general picture of Merton’s thoughts are relatively few. More scholars have a micro-level study on specific theories of Merton’s Sociology of Science and few analyzes its consistent core spirit at the macro-level, which isn’t conducive for us to grasp and posit Merton’s thoughts on the whole. And that, the autonomy of science in different countries and regions has been trampled to varying degrees currently, so it’s important to study systematically the ideas on autonomy of science and the core spirit of defending rationality and objectivity of science in Merton’s thoughts.The author applies document analysis, combining history and logic and comparative method to study Merton’s ideas and tries to focus on the following issues: What was the reason that Merton turned the Scientific Sociology of Knowledge to the Sociology of Scientific System? What is the research focus of Merton’s Sociology of Science and what it intends to solve the basic problems are? What is its consistent core spirit? What are the limitations and their origin? What is the fundamental difference between SSK and Merton’s Sociology of Science? when it got into the theoretical plight, Will it be replaced by SSK or integrated with SSK? Has Merton’s Sociology of Science the value continue to exist and provide what enlightments to Chinese academic community? Along Merton’s consistent thought line, this paper uses as a social system of science for the entry point, which is the theoretical premise that can represent the characteristics of the Merton’s Sociology of Science to the most, and then discusses several issues on it systematically and thoroughly, including the research focus, core spirit, the limitations and their origin and the future development trend. It has gained some innovative results. The author puts forward and argues powerfully that the line running through Merton’s thoughts of Sociology of Science is to defend the rationality of science by emphasizing the autonomy of scientific system. Most work of Merton School is around the line of defending the rationality of scientific system. The paper has made a theoretical discussion on the future development trend of Merton’s Sociology of Science in trouble, combining its specific backgrounds and those related closely issues. These contents are expounded in the introduction, including significance and origin of the subject, the research situations, the basic train of thinking, research methods and the innovations.There are three sections including the introduction, the body and the last part in the paper and five chapters in the body part.The author sorts out research path of Merton’s Sociology of Science in Chapter I. With the changes of theoretical and social backgrounds, there are different research issues in Merton’s Sociology of Science at different times. According to different issues, the development of Merton’s thoughts can be divided into four stages. The first stage is called start-up phase-in the 1930s. Merton analyzed a variety of social factors which contributed to the rise or the institutionalization of modern science dynamically and hadn’t yet formed an independent sociological explanation to science. His theoretical framework was a part of the traditional Sociology of Knowledge. The second stage is called turning-point phase-in the 1940s and 1950s. The events of Nazi Germany trampling on science and the Parsons’structure functionalism had a great impact on Merton. Merton constructed his paradigm of functional analysis and established the direction of his Sociology of Science which is that the science can be seen as a kind of social system by sublating the traditional Sociology of Knowledge. Merton turned to study the structure of science and put forward the theory of norms of science and the idea of rewarding of science. The third phase is called boom phase-the 1960s to mid of 1970s. With the science becoming the origin of social problems, Merton’s work had been receiving more and more attentions from the scholars and Merton School gradually came into being. During this period, Merton School focused on studying the social structure of science and carried out a full range of study on science as a social system, such as the evaluating mechanism, the rewarding system,the manners of communication and the hierarchical structure, etc, whose study belonged to the static structural-function analysis. The fourth phase can be called the decline phase-in the late 1970s to date. The author arrange the contents in Chapter V for the layout of the whole paper.The author analyzes the theoretical premise, research focus and the core spirit of Merton’s Sociology of Science in Chapter II. First of all, the author ponders upon the meanings of science in Merton’s Sociology of Science by combining with the turning point in its development. In the start-up period, Merton analyzed the relationships between Social existences and science considered as a sort of knowledge form. Science at this time was in the narrow sense and referred to the natural science specifically. After the research issues of Merton’s Sociology of Science changed, He studied science as a kind of social system mostly, which has its own unique structure of norm and its value goal was the expansion of confirmed knowledge. From this point of view, it had somethings in common with science being knowledge form. Secondly, the author digs out the research focus of Merton’s Sociology of Science from its basic research contents, such as the interaction of science and society, social structure of science and the rise and decline of discipline or specialty. Merton talked about how social factors acted as a stimulus to the development of science only at the level of impact rather than the fundamental driving force. Merton School emphasized that scientific system should run in accordance with its own norms of conduct, rewarding system and evaluating mechanism in order to prevent the interference and control of factitious and social factors. At the same time, they indicated that disciplines or specialties had their own law of development and the impact of external factors work only through the disciplines or specialties. These contents above reflect research focus of Merton’s Sociology of Science from different aspects that is to emphasize the autonomy of science. Thirdly, Merton followed the positivist view of science on the issues of scientific knowledge. He thought that the social factors could only influence the development pace and focus transfer of science except for its specific contents. Logical positivism emphasized rational spirit from the angle of epistemology. Merton’s Sociology of Science pondered on science as a kind of social system and ensured that the expansion of confirmed knowledge could be realized by emphasizing the autonomy of scientific system, so that the rational spirit of science was strengthened from the angle of sociology. It can be said that the core spirit of Merton’s thoughts is to defend the rationality and objectivity of science.The author discusses the limitations of Merton’s Sociology of Science and their origins in Chapter III. The paper firstly probes into the deficiencies of norms of science and the rewarding of science at the micro-level, which sep up the basic theoretical framework of Merton’s Sociology of Science. Then, the author analyze and summarize Some deficiencies in Merton’s of Sociology of Science at the macro level, which are "inadequate attention to the subjective factors and social factors"; "lack of inspection on the interaction of scientific system and other social systems"; "weak analysis on the non-elite scientists". Lastly, the chapter analyzes these limitations’ origins from the philosophical basis of Merton’s Sociology of Science. The author inspects the current situations of the philosophical basis-positivist epistemology and functionalism methodology. It’s found that Some core tenets of Positivist view of science: demarcation of Science, value neutrality and experience-confirmed principle were overthrew by historism and post-modernism philosophy of science. Structural-functionalism analysis emphasized the priority of function to structure and the priority of common value system to personal motives and behaviors which had excluded the existence of diverse structures in the system and ignored the personal initiative and particularity. And so it was refuted by exchange theory. The criticisms to Merton’s norms come from the refutation of empirical evidence and the existence of anti-norm, which are the extension of criticisms to the structural-functionalism analysis in essence. Merton’s norms inherit the scientific view of positivism and technical specifications are seen as generally effective. They ignored the historical context where the technical standards were applied, so receiving many criticism. Merton stressed the cognitive-strengthened function of the rewarding system of science but ignored its economical function. He had received challenges from Richter’s"two types of exchange systems", Mulkay’s "information-exchange theory", Latour and Woolgar’s"credit-cycle model",which were the expansion of exchange theory’s criticism on the structural-functionism theory actually. Those limitations at macro-level are attributed to the philosophical basis, too.The author reviews the challenges from SSK in Chapter IV. SSK began to develop by criticizing the Merton’s Sociology of Science. It was dissatisfied with the way of Merton’s Sociology of Science suspended scientific knowledge and thought that it wasn’t the true Sociology of Science. On the basis of the premise of Naturalistic empiricism and relativism, SSK criticized the traditional scientific view. It thought that all knowledge without exception should become a legitimate area of sociological research. Its entire work focus is to explain that the formation of scientific knowledge and the results of science contain the social factors. Merton school had responded to criticism from the SSK. On the one hand, they recognized constructivism Sociology of Science had become increasingly influential. Simultaneously they criticized that the extreme relativism position of SSK exaggerated the role of social factors. If we compare Merton’s Sociology of Science with SSK, it’s easy to find that the fundamental difference between them is whether the contents of scientific knowledge can be put to sociological analysis. The essence of difference lies in how much effect the social factors have during the production of scientific knowledge. SSK explained the social nature of scientific knowledge and thought that the nature is little or virtually non-functional in constructing the scientific knowledge. It’s true that the process of scientific understandings is full with a variety of social factors, but it doesn’t mean that the contents of scientific knowledge are determined by the non-rational or social factors. Fundamentally speaking, scientific knowledge is a reflection of the objective reality and constrained by it. So it is unimaginable for the understandings to deviate from the Objective physical objects.The author ponders on the future development trend of Merton’s Sociology of Science in Chapter V. Firstly, the paper analyzes the current situations of Merton’s Sociology of Science and SSK. The rise of SSK caused the gradual decline of Merton’s Sociology of Science and urged it to make some adjustments and concessions. Merton School began to overcome the simplistic and idealized Positivism view of science. Merton abandoned the label of functionalism and was in favor of the paradigm of structural analysis. Merton’s disciples put forward the functionalism of constructivism and the constructivism of realism to revise Merton’s theoretical programs. They started to study the social factors in the actual operation of scientific research and discuss the issues at the junction of social structure and cognitive structure of science. But their researches are more a summary of thoughts rather than ground-breaking. At the same time, SSK’s relativism epistemology received severe criticisms from different aspects. The Sociologists and Philosophers had criticized the principle of symmetry, relativism view of knowledge and the sociological ambition advocated by the Strong Program. It’s not adequate enough for SSK to explain how social factors affect the specific contents of scientific knowledge. Relativism is self-refuting and its symmetry is in fact asymmetry, So that SSK faces the reflexive problem and its internal squabble, starting to split. In this case, what the development trend of Merton’s Sociology of Science will be? The author discusses several problems that are related closely to it, which are as follows: "whether Merton’s norms are necessary in the era of Big Science and how to extend them"; "the possibility for SSK to replace Merton’s Sociology of Science or to integrate with it"; "the thought heritages of Merton’s Sociology of Science" and "the enlightenments of post-SSK’s practice turning". The author points out that SSK couldn’t negate the value of Merton’s Sociology of Science continuing to exist and it has left us with the precious heritage in experience and theory. Its core spirit is to ensure the rationality and objectivity of science by defending the autonomy of scientific system. It is full of rational brilliance of scientific system and ideal appeal and worth looking forward to forever.The last part expounds on the enlightments of Merton’s Sociology of Science to Chinese academic community. Firstly, the paper analyzes the references of its thought system and research methods to Chinese Sociology of Science. Then, It discusses the enlightments of Merton’s thought in Sociology of Science to Chinese development and reform of science and technology, which is to emphasize the autonomy of scientific system,as to defend the rationality and objectivity of science.更多还原