期刊文献+

《自然之死》对科学革命的编史学意义——兼论夏平有关科学史学科的“过度专业化”概念

The Historiography Significance of the Death of Nature to Scientific Revolution——With Discussing the Hyperprofessionalism in History of Science
下载PDF
导出
摘要 《自然之死》一书自出版以来,学术界关注的焦点一直在生态女性主义理论和环境史两方面。科学史领域忽视了该书对"科学革命"的重构。该书以女性主义立场对科学编史学的修正,即对作为狭义科学编史学核心议题的科学革命及其连带科学观的重塑,应该被重新评估。此外,还有必要由《自然之死》一书在科学史领域被边缘化的原因之一,即学科"过度专业化"现象,延伸讨论学术研究的方法问题。 Since the publication of The Death of Nature, studies of the book mainly focus on the field of eeofeminism and the environmental history in academia. However, the book' s reconstruction of the scientific revolution has been ignored by the field of history of science. This article aims to re--evaluate the book's reconstruction of the scientific revolution - which is the core topic within the historiography of science in narrow sense-from the feminism standpoint, and the reconstruction of the view of science consequently. Moreover, this article analyses possible reasons why the book has been marginalized in the field of history of science and then, discuss one of the most significant reason-hyperprofessionalism in history of science. According to the discussion of the hyperprofessionalism, this article explores the methodological issues in academic research.
作者 徐秋石 刘兵
出处 《科学与社会》 CSSCI 2016年第2期44-54,共11页 Science and Society
关键词 女性主义科学编史学 科学革命 自然之死 过度专业化 feminist historiography of science, scientific revolution, the Death of Nature, hyperprofessionalism
  • 相关文献

参考文献12

  • 1Carolyn Merchant. The Scientific Revolution and the Death of Nature. Isis, 2006, 97(3) : 513-533.
  • 2卡洛琳·麦茜特.自然之死——妇女、生态和科学革命.吴国盛等译.长春:吉林人民出版社,2004.
  • 3刘兵,曾南燕.女性主义与科学史[J].自然辩证法通讯,1995,17(4):44-51. 被引量:21
  • 4Katherine Park. Women, Gender, and Utopia: The Death of Nature and the Histo- riography of Early Modern Science. Isis, 2006, 97(3): 487-495.
  • 5Joan Cadden. Introduction. Isis, 2006, 97(3): 485-486.
  • 6刘晓雪,刘兵.布鲁诺再认识:耶兹的有关研究及其启示.载:刘兵等著.科学编史学研究.上海:上海交通大学出版社,2015.
  • 7刘兵,章梅芳.科学史中"内史"与"外史"划分的消解:从科学知识社会学的立场看.载:刘兵等著.科学编史学研究.上海:上海交通大学出版社,2015.
  • 8Steve Shapin. Hyperprofessionalism and the Crisis of Readership in the History of Science. Isis, 2005, 96(2): 238-243.
  • 9Robert E. Kohler. A Generalist's Vision. Isis, 2005, 96(2).. 224-229.
  • 10Paula Findlen. The Two Cultures of Scholarship?. Isis. 2005, 96(2) .. 230-237.

二级参考文献1

共引文献20

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部