超越相对主义的不同路径——布尔迪厄和拉图尔的科学社会学思想比较

Different Routes Overcoming Relativism:A Comparison Between Bourdieu and Latour's Sociology of Science

科学知识社会学寻求从理论上说明社会因素对科学内容的影响或作用,这种说明破坏了科学知识的合法性,并导致了其理论的相对主义。布尔迪厄和拉图尔都试图发展一种科学社会学以超越相对主义。布尔迪厄的科学场理论强调科学的自主性,拉图尔的联合社会学理论则强调联合。这是因为他们各自持有相反的认识论和本体论假定。布尔迪厄关于在相对自主的科学场中产生的知识是"超历史的"的主张仍然是一种认识论断言,而拉图尔关于知识是通过联合生成的主张,则未能捕捉到帮助我们建立可信任的资源、区别和边界。当然,这两种理论对科学应该如何被组织的问题给出了答案,有利于我们研究和回答科学如何嵌入社会的现实问题。

The sociology of scientific knowledge seeks to theoretically explain the influence or function of social factors on scientific content,which undermines the legitimacy of scientific knowledge. Both Bourdieu and Latour are trying to develop a sociology of science that overcomes relativism. Bourdieu＇s scientific field theory emphasizes the autonomy of science. Latour＇s theory of sociology of associations emphasizes associations. This is because they work with oppositional epistemological and ontological assumptions. Bourdieu＇s assertion that knowledge produced in relatively autonomous scientific fields are＂trans-historical＂remains an epistemological assertion. Latour＇s claim that knowledges are produced through associations fails to capture the resources,distinctions and boundaries that help build credibility. Both theories,of course,answer the question of how science should be organized. It is helpful for us to study and answer the realistic question of how science is embedded in society.