孔恩、布洛爾與對稱性原則

Thomas Kuhn, David Bloor, and the Principle of Symmetry

孔恩觀點是否符合科學知識社會學（SSK）立場並預示其對稱性原則？一般對此問題的回應論述，不是引用孔恩自己反對SSK的言論，就是以《科學革命的結構》為界區分孔恩觀點為前後期，前期孔恩符合或接近SSK，後期孔恩牴觸SSK。本文論述稍異於兩者。本文先檢視孔恩說詞，再分析孔恩內──外史的編史學觀點，然後考察對稱性原則起草人布洛爾的科技史研究。孔恩對於內、外史的定義異於一般史學家的區別，他認定的「內史」已經跨越到傳統的外史領域；而孔恩反對實證派聚焦科學知識內容的哲學觀，論述多有意凸顯科學的外在因素對於科學發展的影響，這使得孔恩的觀點有外在論傾向，看似與SSK相近但其實還遠，尤其與對稱性原則無關。本文審視布洛爾的科技史案例研究，分析其利益說明模式及對稱性原則的要求。利益說明是孔恩反對的，而對稱性原則一個鮮明的特徵（即便布洛爾和其他SSK成員沒有強調），在於刻意區別出真與假、成功與失敗理論兩邊支持群體的社會（階級、身分）特徵並對立起來。不論是前期孔恩，還是後期孔恩，都沒有這種傾向。即使一般認為最接近SSK的前期孔恩《哥白尼革命》、《科學革命的結構》，也看不出刻意區別地心──日心說或燃素──氧氣說兩邊支持群體的社會特徵的論述。不論孔恩說詞一致與否，他的論述沒有SSK那種社會決定論立場及對稱性原則始終如一。

Is Thomas Kuhn’s theory of scientific changes consistent with the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) and the principle of symmetry? One may divide Kuhn’s thought into “early Kuhn” and “late Kuhn”, bifurcated by the publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. The early Kuhn closely resembles SSK; the late Kuhn does not. In this article I first examine Kuhn’s own words regarding SSK and his viewpoint regarding internalism and externalism in the historiography of science. Then I analyze David Bloor's application of the principle of symmetry to case studies in the history of technology. It will emerge that Kuhn’s idea of internalism－externalism in historiography is rather unorthodox. His own definition of “internalism” approximates the definition of externalism accepted by most historians. This is one reason why Kuhn’s thought is superficially similar to SSK but is actually very different and has nothing to do with the principle of symmetry. Whether early Kuhn or late Kuhn, my analysis reveals no adherence to the principle of symmetry used by Bloor or other SSKists to deliberately mark off two social classes or status groups into advocates of true or false, successful or failed theories.