历史研究的新实证主义诉求

A Neo-Positivist Appeal in Historiography

时下流行的多种强调历史认识主观性的言说,皆不能解构历史的可认知性,历史研究者可以依据真实历史遗留的包括文本的和非文本在内的各种遗迹来认识历史。判断历史研究结果的尺度只能是其接近所要澄清的事实之真相与本质的程度。兰克学派和从司马光到乾嘉学派的考异、辨伪、考据、校勘,以及中国现代新史学的实证研究传统提供的史料批判方法依然基本有效。实证主义史学所受的批评,主要沿着西方哲学和历史学交叉演变的路径思考下来,没有切实关照中国历史学的实践,有的切中要害,有的是吹毛求疵。传统实证主义历史学的根本问题是在强调历史学家求取历史真实的目标时,没有同时对于历史学达到其目标的过程进行认识论层面的深入考究,但后现代主义只能为针砭实证主义弊病的药石而非替代的方案。新实证主义汲取19世纪后期以来多种反思论说中的合理要素,坚持历史可认知性,以根据证据澄清事实为使命,对影响历史认知的非证据性因素永远保持警觉,不追求语言奇幻、过度诠释,不以理论操控证据和事实,不因现实价值立场而故意忽视或曲解历史事实,不以融入其他学科为目标。

The possibility of historical knowledge has not been deconstructed by the currently popular theories emphasizing the subjective nature of historical cognition. Historians can obtain reliable knowledge about the past relying on the remains in text form or other. The ultimate standard to evaluate a historical study should only be the degree of that study approached to the factual realty that one meant to clarify. The basic methodology established by Ranke School and Chinese historians from Sima Guang to Qianjia School as well as the modern Chinese historiography is still valid. Criticisms against historical Positivist methodology have mainly reflected the concerns about Western philosophy and historiography without a full consideration of Chinese historiography. They pointed out some real problems of the positivist historiography while contain some groundless opinions as well. The fundamental problems of the traditional Positivist historiography is that,while emphasizing the objectivity of historical studies, it failed to examine the process with critical attitude in level of historical cognition. The post-modernist perspectives, on the other hand, revealed the shortcomings of the Positivist historiography but failed to provide a sounder replacement. A Neo-positivist historiography should accept the reasonable related criticisms since the nineteenth century, hold the basic standpoint of based on evidences to clarify historical facts, be curious to all non-factual elements penetrated into historical studies, avoid over explanation, reject theory and ideology determination, and defend the independence of history as a discipline of scholarship.