科学管理的“实证性”批判--国际压舱水排放标准的“理性”剖析

Critique of Positivism of Scientific Management--On the rationales of international ballast water discharge standards

本研究聚焦于国际海事组织在2004年出台的《船舶压舱水及沉积物管理国际公约》中有关控制压舱水排放可能引起的生物入侵的相应管理规范。通过剖析这些规范,本研究展示了科学研究及其相应的管理实践不可能是纯然客观的。分析表明,具体的压舱水排放标准预设了三项命题:(Ⅰ)种群拓殖的非零阈值(强阿利效应的普遍性);(Ⅱ)自然状态下的生物入侵的频率是可接受的;(Ⅲ)种群拓殖可能与个体质量间的正向关系。其中,每一命题又分别蕴含了两项子命题。详细的剖析表明,六项子命题没有一项通得过严格的实证检验。但是我们不能据此判定这种压舱水排放标准就是不合理的,因为客观实证并不是“合理性”的唯一内核,甚或不是其最重要的内核。本研究显示,一项科学研究的结论或一条相应的管理实践的标准,都涉及不同层面的“理性”,既包括工具层面的经济性与可操作性,也包括认知层面的实证支撑与形上信念,特别地,形上层面的信念具有至关重要的挈领作用。

This research is focused on the International convention for the control and management of ship’s ballast water and sediments issued by the International Maritime Organization in 2004,in particular on its regulations to control biological invasions caused by ballast water discharge(BWD).This article concludes that scientific research and its corresponding management cannot be purely objective,especially,demonstrates that the specific ballast water discharge standards presuppose three propositions:(Ⅰ) a non-zero threshold for population colonization(commonness of the strong Allee effect);(Ⅱ) the frequency of biological invasions that naturally happen is acceptable;(Ⅲ) a positive relationship between the possibility of population colonization and individual body mass.Each further implies two sub-propositions respectively.The analysis shows,however,that none of these six propositions can rigorously pass the empirical/positivistic test.Nevertheless,we cannot thereby judge that these ballast water discharge standards are unreasonable,because objective empiricism/positivism is not the only(or even the most important) kernel of "reason".Further analysis shows that a scientific conclusion or the corresponding practical regulation involves different levels of "rationale",including economy and operability at an instrumental level,and empirical supports and metaphysical beliefs at the epistemological level.In particular,metaphysical beliefs play a leading role.