【作者】 彭永东；

【导师】 刘钝；

【作者基本信息】 中国科学院研究生院（自然科学史研究所） ， 科学史， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 作为20世纪中叶诞生的重大科学理论之一,控制论受到学界的广泛研讨和关注,其影响力跨越了学科和国界,直抵今日众多热门的研究领域如计算机,自动控制,航天航空,通讯工程,人工智能,经济管理等等,也渗透至日常生活领域。但在今天,作为传播的结果,还处处存在着悖论现象:控制,信息,反馈等术语已进入日常生活,但人们极少将它们与维纳和控制论这门学科联系起来;控制论在苏联和美国的境遇明显不对称:在美国相关研究陷入低潮时,在苏联控制论却成为响亮的口号;人们还常常把控制论的成果与其分支学科的成果混为一谈,例如把控制理论与控制论的理论不加区分使用等等。这些问题构成本文的出发点和研究动机。 国内从方法论,哲学,史学角度探讨控制论的文章汗牛充栋,但一般多着眼于围绕维纳控制论思想的形成前后展开追踪和研究,未能将控制论放在当时世界科学和世界政治的大背景下作社会学的考察。对一门具体学科的社会学考察是有助于加深理解整体科学的进程的,这也是本文的意义宗旨所在。 笔者尝试从传播的角度,选取控制论发生和传播最鼎盛的1940—1970这三十年时间,集中对这一学科理论在美国的发生和发展,以及它在两个社会主义国家——苏联和中国的传播状况作个案分析。行文中援用了S(?)M(?)V(Science(s)(?)Metaphysics(es)(?)Value(s))分析原则,采取变焦分析的手法展开对控制论的考察,以图揭示控制论作为一门横断型学科,其发生发展的自身规律,以及意识形态何以影响它的传播,控制论发展的内在规律又如何在国际政治和意识形态下对理论传播发挥作用。 全文分八章。第一章为序言,提出控制论的传播悖论及其传播史研究的意义,点明笔者所用研究方法和立场,再侧重从众人评说的角度勾勒控制论的概貌。 第二、三章以史实分析论证:控制论有着长期而丰富的历史线索,它之发生是群体推进的结果,并得益于技术工具与观念的双重驱动,因此它才有广泛而深厚的传播基础。 第四章从三个方面论述了控制论在美国的境遇:其一是美国当时的科技和社会发展背景对控制论诞生的促进作用,其二是美国数学家维纳对控制论的诞生和传播做出的贡献,其三是通过介绍控制论的梅西基金会议来说明控制论群体的形成和扩大过程。 第五章主要论述控制论如何从美国传播到世界。除了出版物和报刊媒体的宣传普及外,本章着重分析了主导控制论传播的内在两方面的因素:一是控制论统一术语(赛博语言)的形成特点及其功用;一是控制论所涉及的分支学科的发展:选取了控制理论,生物学控制论,人工智能和经济控制论这四大有代表性的学科领域,意图通过描述它们的发生与成长过程表明控制论何以在其中起到推进作用,而正是由于这些学科自身强大的生命力足以支撑其学科自治,因此自然地弱化或淡化了控制论的影响力。 第六章论述了控制论在代表社会主义国家的苏联的奇特境遇,从50年代初开始被批判为反动的伪科学到平反和最终六十年代初被尊为服务共产主义的国家科学。控制论的传播与意识形态和权力斗争纠缠一处,体现了复杂的知识权力更多还原

【Abstract】 Emerging in the middle period of the 20th century, cybernetics, one of the most important theories of science, has attracted cross-disciplinary attention beyond the boundary of countries and been widely discussed in academic fields. Its influence has proliferated in present popular fields such as computer, automation, aviation, communication projects, artificial intelligence and economic management, etc.. It has also permeated our daily life. Nevertheless, as a result of communication, paradoxes can often be found—for instance, lack of knowledge about Wiener and cybernetics even when cybernetic terms such as control, information, and feedback have been widely used in daily life;its apparent asymmetrical development in the Soviet Union and the United States;frequent occurrence of confusing the achievements of cybernetics with those of its branch disciplines, etc. . Those issues, more than anything else, explain the point of departure and motive of the research in this dissertation.In China an immense number of articles have been issued, mainly exploring cybernetics in light of methodology, philosophy and historiography. However, they focused generally on issues about the birth of Wiener’ s cybernetic ideas without making relevant sociological studies of the discipline by situating the theory in the framework of world science and politics at the time. It is, however, the author’ s belief that a sociological review of a discipline will efficiently deepen our understanding of the process of science as a whole and this is also what the dissertation aims at.Thus the dissertation, in light of communication, focuses on the study of the thirty years between 1940 and 1970 in which cybernetics came into being and reached its peak, with case studies of the emergence and development of the theory in the US and its communication in the two socialist countries, the Soviet Union and China. Quoted by the analytic principle S←→M←→V (Science (s) ←→Metaphysics (es) ←→Value (s)) , it probes into cybernetic theory through zoom analysis. It attempts to illustrate 1)how the law of its own governing the development of cybernetics as an interdiscipline;2) how ideology inserted impact on its communication;3)how the inherent law of its development influenced its communication within the framework of the international politics and ideology.The dissertation consists of eight chapters. Chapter One is the introduction that involves a literature review outlining general picture of cybernetics. In this chapter paradoxes in the communication ofcybernetics are also pointed out and the significance of its historical study is then revealed. It also shows clearly research method to be used and stance the author holds.The next two chapters are based on historical evidence. They show that the emergence of cybernetics was out of a culminating fusion of several threads of research work, beneficial from duel drives of technical tools and concepts. It explains why cybernetics has a far-ranging and deep foundation of communication.Chapter 4 studies the condition of cybernetics in the US from 3 aspects: the role of the social and scientific context in the US at the time on the emergence of cybernetics;the contribution of American mathematician Robert Wiener to the birth and communication of cybernetics;the formation and extension of the cybernetic group with an introduction to Macy Foundation Conference.Chapter 5 mainly shows how cybernetics theory spread to the World from the US. Besides the factors of publications, media and journals, this part also emphasizes two internal factors guiding the communication of cybernetics: one is the formation and function of the unified cybernetic term "cyberspeak" , another is the development of the branch disciplines of cybernetics. It selects four representative fields, namely, control theory, biological cybernetics, artificial intelligence and economic cybernetics. With the description of their emergence and growth it attempts to manifest the driving power by cybernetics in those fields. It also reveals scientific autonomy in those disciplines weakened the influence of cybernetics.Chapter 6 discusses the unique communication of cybernetics in the Soviet Union, the representative of socialist countries. Cybernetics changed its identity from an antirevolutionary pseudo-science to the later rebellion and then to be finally regarded as a national science serving communism. The communication was involved with ideology and power relation, which showed complex interaction between knowledge and power. The chapter shows, with the changing relations of power in society, how cybernetics was recognized, revalued and utilized in the scientific field and how it gradually replaced materialistic dialectic to be a theory guiding science work and was finally written into the guiding principle of the communism party in the Soviet Union.Chapter 7 illustrates the early communication of cybernetics in China. It is based on an analysis of three successive stages in history, namely, the cooperation between Norbert Wiener and Chinese scholars (1929-1949);the acceptance of the concept of cybernetics in China (1949-1955);and the discussion and further studies of cybernetics by scholars at home (1956-1966) since PRC s Twelve-Year Plan for the Development of Science and Technology was made. The focus is put on the rising and evolution of cybernetic studies in China between 1956-1966. It reveals that twosubstantive driving forces have contributed to the successful communication of cybernetics in China: one came from translations of foreign works about cybernetics and the relevant research work by civil scholars in the philosophical field;another came from the 3-staged acceptance of recognition- research- development by civil researchers in the circle of science. Through statistic analysis and comparison, it draws a conclusion that the early communication of cybernetics in China manifested a unique model of science communication, namely, philosophical consideration comes first with parallel drives impelling the communication of the theory.Chapter 8 summarizes the whole dissertation with further considerations on conditions of communication of cybernetics. It attempts to clarify some common factors in the science communication so as to open up new visions for future research.更多还原