默顿“无私利性”科学规范论研究

发布时间：2018-06-17 19:12

本文选题：罗伯特K.默顿 + 无私利性　；参考：《河南大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：罗伯特K.默顿,被称为“科学社会学之父”。1942年,他在《论科学与民主》一文中系统地阐述了科学活动的规范结构,无私利性是四种制度上的规范之一。从上世纪60年代后期,默顿规范引起学术界的广泛争论和引用,无私利性是遭受争议最大的一条。中外学者对无私利性的研究已经取得了不少成果,但还缺乏比较全面系统的专题研究。我们试着努力推进这项工作。希望这一研究能使学界对无私利性有新的认识,并以此求教于师长。本文分为五章。第一章《无私利性规范的由来》,首先考察了无私利性规范提出的理论前提:隐藏在清教教义中的心理学层面的“情感”实体是科学发展的一个强大动力的假设,科学被看作是一种社会体制的社会规定假说,以及科学由于制度和结构存在竞争现象的预示。其次考察了无私利性规范产生的历史背景:20世纪三四十年代,德国法西斯政权妨碍科学活动,破坏科学内部运行秩序;现代科学体制化已经达到了非常发达的状态,科学的运行开始受到重视。第二章《无私利性规范内涵的不同诠释》,包括两个内容。一是根据文献调研,归纳出默顿对无私利性规范的释义:科学家具有利己动机;无私利性规范通过对动机的制度性控制要求科学家的职业活动成为一种非谋利性的活动,无论利己还是利他;反对、禁止利用科学谋取任何利益;无私利性规范是惩戒性规范,违者要受到心理惩罚;科学家可以获取营生方面的物质利益。二是试探性分析了国内外其他学者的阐释,其中,巴伯把无私利性规范看作一种道德理想与默顿的思想相一致。第三章《无私利性规范遭受的批评和得到的辩护及发展》,简述了默顿规范遭受批评的社会背景和学术背景。对无私利性的批评和辩护集中归纳为主要两点:实践性(真实性)问题和完备性问题。英国爱丁堡学派的马尔凯的批评具有独特意义,他否定无私利性具有真实性。国内孙贵启教授也对其真实性提出了质疑。面对批评,默顿学派一一进行了回应,进行辩护。巴伯提出“感情中立”的价值理想,斯托勒提出“商品交换论”发展了无私利性规范论。马来平先生、徐梦秋和欧阳锋教授都用“应然“和”实然“的关系论证了这一规范的真实性问题。马来平先生还认为,无私利性规范设定的目标太高,为更加贴近实际,可以放宽理解,并提出了修正方向。第四章《对无私利性规范所在系统的结构层次分析》,通过对科学精神的结构层次分析得知,无私利性规范位于其中的社会关系层次,在社会运行的动力和保障上,体现科学的精神价值。通过科学规范体系的层次分析得知,无私利性规范属于社会规范,是“元规范”。因它缺乏操作层面的控制功能而批判它是对“科学精神气质”的误解,这种批评不得要领。第五章《“无私利性”规范与现实差距的症结》。内容主要有:1.简述科学的建制使职业科学家得以产生,从事科研成为谋生的手段,科学的工具价值被发现。2.论述了功利性是科学的一个根本属性,科学活动具有功利性的价值取向,科学家付出劳动、做出贡献,自然会有利益诉求。3.运用马斯洛的“基本需求层次理论”,对科学家谋取功利的正当性进行心理学分析。4.反面例证,科学家功利欲望十分强烈。5.通过科学家在科学活动各环节的谋利和违规情况分析,得知,科学家谋取正当利益不侵犯科学的客观性。6.主要讨论了,科学家获取正当利益是自身发展的需要,是社会公平公正的需要,合情、合理、合法。7.“无私利性”规范过于理想化。主要论述了无私利性规范没有考虑、照顾到科学家自身发展的需要,不符合人性;没有考虑到科学家也是社会中平等的一员,不合理。
[Abstract]:Robert K. Merton, called the father of Sociology of science, was called the "father of Sociology of science", in which he systematically expounded the normative structure of scientific activities in the literature of science and democracy. No private interest is one of the norms on the four systems. From the late 60s of the last century, the Merton norms caused widespread controversy and citations in the academic circles, and the non private nature was the most controversial. The big one. The Chinese and foreign scholars have made a lot of achievements in the study of selflessness, but there is still a lack of a comprehensive and systematic special study. We try to push forward this work. It is hoped that this study can make the academic community have a new understanding of the non selfish nature and seek teaching to the teachers.
This article is divided into five chapters. The first chapter, "the origin of the non selfish norms", first inspects the theoretical premise of the non selfish norms: the "emotional" entity, which is hidden in the doctrines of Puritanism, is a powerful motive force of scientific development, and science is regarded as a social regulation hypothesis of social system, and science because of it. There is a foretaste of the competition phenomenon in the system and structure. Secondly, it examines the historical background of the non selfish norms: in 30s and 40s twentieth Century, the German fascist regime hinders scientific activities and destroys the internal operation order of science; the institutionalization of modern science has reached a very developed state, and the operation of science has begun to be emphasized.
The second chapter, the different interpretation of the connotation of the normative connotation of the non selfish nature, includes two contents. First, according to the literature survey, it concludes Merton's interpretation of the non selfish norms: the scientist has a selfish motivation, and the non selfish norm requires the institutional control of the motivation to become a non profit making activity, regardless of egoism. It is altruism; against and prohibiting the use of science for any benefit; non selfish norms are disciplinary norms, violators have to be punished by psychological punishment; scientists can gain material interests in the field of life. Two is an exploratory analysis of the interpretation of other scholars at home and abroad, of which Barber regards the non selfish norms as a moral ideal and Merton's thought. It is the same.
The third chapter, "the criticism and the defense and development of the non selfish norms", describes the social and academic background of the criticism of Merton's norms. The criticism and defense of the selflessness are mainly divided into two main points: practical (authenticity) and completeness. The criticism of the British Edinburgh School of markai is unique. In the face of criticism, the Merton school responded and defended the criticism. Barber put forward the value ideal of "emotional neutrality". Barber proposed the "commodity exchange theory" to develop the non private normative theory. Mr. maleping, Xu Mengqiu and Prof. Ouyang Feng demonstrated the authenticity of the norm with the relationship between "deserved" and "true". Mr. maleping also believed that the goal set by the non selfish norms was too high to be more close to reality and to broaden the understanding and put forward the correction direction.
In the fourth chapter, the analysis of the structure level of the system of non selfish norms lies in the analysis of the structural level of the scientific spirit. It is found that the non selfish norms are located in the social relations level in which the spiritual value of the science is embodied in the motive force and guarantee of the social operation. The social norm is a "meta standard". It is a misconception that it is a misunderstanding of "scientific spirit" because it lacks the control function of the operational level, and this criticism is not necessary.
The fifth chapter is the crux of the gap between the "non selfish" norms and the reality gap. The main contents are as follows: 1. a brief description of the establishment of the scientific system makes the professional scientists able to produce, to engage in scientific research and become a means of making a living. The value of the scientific tool has been discovered by.2. that utilitarianism is a fundamental attribute of science, and the scientific activity has a utilitarian value orientation, a scientist Labor, make contributions, and make contributions, naturally there will be interest appeals.3. use of Maslow's "basic demand level theory", the legitimacy of the scientists to make utilitarianism in psychological analysis.4. example, the scientist's utilitarian desire is very strong.5. through the scientists in the scientific activities of the ring of profit and violation of the situation analysis, learned that scientists, scientists To seek legitimate interests and not to infringe on the objectivity of science,.6. mainly discusses that scientists' gain of legitimate interests is the need for their own development, is the need for social fairness and justice, and is reasonable and reasonable, and the legal.7. "non selfish" standard is too idealized. It is mainly discussed that the non selfish norms have not been considered and take care of the needs of the development of scientists themselves. Conforms to human nature; without considering that scientists are also equal members in society, it is unreasonable.
【学位授予单位】：河南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：G301

【相似文献】