科学“值得思考”

Science Wars Pub Date : 1996-01-21 DOI:10.2307/466841
S. Harding
{"title":"科学“值得思考”","authors":"S. Harding","doi":"10.2307/466841","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"shows how the \"order of knowledge\" has also been the \"order of society.\" When challenges to the social order have arisen, these challenges have also changed the prevailing ways that the production and legitimation of knowledge have been organized, and vice versa: the social order and the structure of a culture's sciences are generated through one and the same social transformations (see, for example, Merchant 1980; Restivo 1988; Shapin 1994; Shapin and Schaffer 1985). This is pretty close to what the antidemocratic right believes: the new science studies, feminism, \"deconstructionism,\" and multiculturalism threaten the downfall of civilization and its standards of reason.1 The latter criticism does not contest that the order of knowledge and the social order shape and maintain each other, but only the way science studies reveals how such science-society relations have worked in the past and operate today, and the proposal in some of these science studies tendencies for more open, public discussion about the desirability of prevailing science-society relations. It is significant that the Right's objections virtually never get into the nitty-gritty of historical or ethnographic detail to contest the accuracy of social studies of science accounts. Such objections remain at the level of rhetorical flourishes and ridicule.","PeriodicalId":114432,"journal":{"name":"Science Wars","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Science Is \\\"Good to Think With\\\"\",\"authors\":\"S. Harding\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/466841\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"shows how the \\\"order of knowledge\\\" has also been the \\\"order of society.\\\" When challenges to the social order have arisen, these challenges have also changed the prevailing ways that the production and legitimation of knowledge have been organized, and vice versa: the social order and the structure of a culture's sciences are generated through one and the same social transformations (see, for example, Merchant 1980; Restivo 1988; Shapin 1994; Shapin and Schaffer 1985). This is pretty close to what the antidemocratic right believes: the new science studies, feminism, \\\"deconstructionism,\\\" and multiculturalism threaten the downfall of civilization and its standards of reason.1 The latter criticism does not contest that the order of knowledge and the social order shape and maintain each other, but only the way science studies reveals how such science-society relations have worked in the past and operate today, and the proposal in some of these science studies tendencies for more open, public discussion about the desirability of prevailing science-society relations. It is significant that the Right's objections virtually never get into the nitty-gritty of historical or ethnographic detail to contest the accuracy of social studies of science accounts. Such objections remain at the level of rhetorical flourishes and ridicule.\",\"PeriodicalId\":114432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Wars\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Wars\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/466841\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Wars","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/466841","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

说明了“知识的秩序”如何也成为“社会的秩序”。当对社会秩序的挑战出现时,这些挑战也改变了知识生产和合法化的主要组织方式,反之亦然:社会秩序和文化科学的结构是通过同一种社会变革产生的(例如,参见Merchant 1980;Restivo 1988;史蒂文斯1994;Shapin and Schaffer 1985)。这与反民主的右翼所相信的非常接近:新科学研究、女权主义、“解构主义”和多元文化主义威胁着文明及其理性标准的衰落后一种批评并不质疑知识秩序和社会秩序相互塑造和维持,而只是质疑科学研究揭示这种科学-社会关系在过去和今天是如何运作的方式,以及一些科学研究倾向于更开放、更公开地讨论主流科学-社会关系的可取性。值得注意的是,右翼的反对意见实际上从未触及历史或人种学细节的本质,以质疑科学描述的社会研究的准确性。这样的反对意见仍然停留在夸夸其谈和嘲笑的水平上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Science Is "Good to Think With"
shows how the "order of knowledge" has also been the "order of society." When challenges to the social order have arisen, these challenges have also changed the prevailing ways that the production and legitimation of knowledge have been organized, and vice versa: the social order and the structure of a culture's sciences are generated through one and the same social transformations (see, for example, Merchant 1980; Restivo 1988; Shapin 1994; Shapin and Schaffer 1985). This is pretty close to what the antidemocratic right believes: the new science studies, feminism, "deconstructionism," and multiculturalism threaten the downfall of civilization and its standards of reason.1 The latter criticism does not contest that the order of knowledge and the social order shape and maintain each other, but only the way science studies reveals how such science-society relations have worked in the past and operate today, and the proposal in some of these science studies tendencies for more open, public discussion about the desirability of prevailing science-society relations. It is significant that the Right's objections virtually never get into the nitty-gritty of historical or ethnographic detail to contest the accuracy of social studies of science accounts. Such objections remain at the level of rhetorical flourishes and ridicule.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信