布洛爾的哲學立場及其波以耳案例研究

David Bloor's Philosophical Stance and His Case Study of Robert Boyle

布洛爾是科學知識社會學的領航者，建立科學知識社會學的理論基礎並為之辯護，特別是強綱領及有限論。雖然布洛爾標榜知識社會學，但也擅長哲學論述，有其特定哲學立場。他早期曾運用強綱領方法，做過波以耳的科學史案例研究。本文目的是耙梳布洛爾哲學理路，闡述他為何反對「哲學家」，並從「理論脈絡」分析波以耳案例，對比布洛爾的「社會脈絡」分析，可顯露科學知識社會學的研究取徑的缺陷。從布洛爾早期案例研究來審視，顯示科學知識社會學早期案例研究操作，集中偏向社會原因影響科學家理論選擇。波以耳案例可視為一個科學知識社會學案例原型，這種強調社會面向的案例分析方式，部分地解釋為何科學知識社會學廣泛被認為是主張「社會因素完全地影響科學變遷」。布洛爾批評這是「誤解」，後來也一直為此辯護並澄清。 David Bloor is the founder of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). He constructs and defends the theoretical basis of SSK especially “the strong programme” and “finitism”. Bloor is probably most well known for his work in the knowledge of sociology but he also specializes in philosophical discourse. In the early days of SSK, he once carried out a case study in the history of science which targeted Robert Boyle using the method of the strong programme. The aim of this paper is to examine Bloor's philosophical discourse and elucidate his philosophical stance. This will help to explain why he opposes “philosophers”. Moreover, this paper showcases a theoretical context approach to the case study of Boyle; one that differs from Bloor's social context approach. This will highlight shortcomings in Bloor's version of the SSK approach. By way of a case study comparison, it also shows the reasons why the “causation” of SSK is widely regarded to be purely social; a charge that Bloor both denies and inveighs against.

David Bloor is the founder of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). He constructs and defends the theoretical basis of SSK especially “the strong programme” and “finitism”. Bloor is probably most well known for his work in the knowledge of sociology but he also specializes in philosophical discourse. In the early days of SSK, he once carried out a case study in the history of science which targeted Robert Boyle using the method of the strong programme. The aim of this paper is to examine Bloor's philosophical discourse and elucidate his philosophical stance. This will help to explain why he opposes “philosophers”. Moreover, this paper showcases a theoretical context approach to the case study of Boyle; one that differs from Bloor's social context approach. This will highlight shortcomings in Bloor's version of the SSK approach. By way of a case study comparison, it also shows the reasons why the “causation” of SSK is widely regarded to be purely social; a charge that Bloor both denies and inveighs against.