چرا دوگانگی میان برون‌گرایی و درون‌گرایی نباید منحل شود تحلیلی از تاریخ تمایز علم محض/ علم کاربردی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

پژوهشکده مطالعات بنیادین علم و فناوری، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

در حالی‌که مدافعان تحلیل‌هایِ درون‌گرایانه سعی دارند با استفاده از ویژگی‌های شناختیْ علوم محض و کاربردی را از یکدیگر متمایز کنند، مدافعان تحلیل‌های برون‌گرایانه تلاش می‌کنند با توسل به ویژگی‌های غیرشناختی یا زمینه‌ایْ تمایز مذکور را ترسیم کنند. در این مقاله، استدلال خواهد شد که هیچ‌یک از این رویکردها به‌تنهایی، خصوصاً در بازنمایی تمایز علم محض/ علم کاربردی و نسبت میان آنها، کفایت لازم را ندارند. در ادامه و پس از معرفی مدل وحدت‌بخش نانای از تاریخ‌های درونی و بیرونی، نشان داده خواهد شد که این مدل برای تحلیلِ تاریخِ تمایزِ محض/کاربردی مطلوب است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Why the Distinction between Externalism and Internalism Should not be Collapsed

نویسنده [English]

  • Aboutorab Yaghmaie
The Institute for Science and Technology Studies (ISTS), Shahid Beheshti University
چکیده [English]

While internalists, drawing on cognitive features, try to distinguish pure from applied science, externalists do it by contextual or non-cognitive ones. In this article, I will argue that neither externalism nor internalism is adequate to represent the distinction between pure/applied science and their relationship. In the following, after introducing the unifying framework of Nanay, I will argue that the distinction is adequately represented by Nanay’s model.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Applied science
  • External history
  • Internal history
  • Pure science
Boon, M. (2006). “How Science Is Applied in Technology”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(01), pp. 27-47.

Bud, R. (2012). “Applied Science: A Phrase in Search of a Meaning”. Isis, 103(3), pp. 537-545.

Bud, R. (2014). “Applied Science in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Public Discourse and the Creation of Meaning, 1817–1876”. History and Technology, 30(1-2), pp. 3-36. doi: 10.1080/07341512.2014.921416.

Bunge, M. (1966). “Technology as Applied Science”. Technology and Culture, 7(3), pp. 329-347.

Bush, V. (1945). Science: the Endless Frontier. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Calvert, J. (2004). “The Idea of ‘Basic Research”. Language and Practice. Minerva, 42(3), pp. 251-268. doi: 10.1023/B:MINE.0000038307.58765.b4.

Cartwright, N. (1976). “How do we apply science? ” in R. S. Cohen, C. A. Hooker, A. C. Michalos & J. W. Van Evra (Eds.), PSA 1974. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 32, pp. 713-719). Springer.

Clarke, S. (2010). “Pure Science with a Practical Aim: The Meanings of Fundamental Research in Britain, circa 1916–1950”. Isis, 101(2), pp. 285-311.

Cohen, B. (1980). The Newtonian Revolution in Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Coleridge, S. T. (1818). A Treatise on Method. London: B. Fellowes.

Earman, J., & Glymour, C. (1978). “Lost in the Tensors: Einstein's Struggles with Covariance Principles 1912–1916”. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 9(4), pp. 251-278.

Galison, P. (2008). “Ten Problems in History and Philosophy of Science”. Isis, 99(1), pp. 111-124.

Hall, A. R. (1974). “What Did the Industrial Revolution in Britain Owe to Science?” In N. McKendrick & J. H. Plumb (Eds.), Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society in Honour of J.H. Plumb (pp. 129–151). London: Europa Publications Ltd.

Hughes, T. P. (1976). “The Science-Technology Interaction: The Case of High-Voltage Power Transmission Systems”. Technology and Culture, 17(4), pp. 646-662.

Kline, R. (1995). “Construing “technology” as “applied science”: Public Rhetoric of Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1880-1945”. Isis, vol. 86, pp. 194-221.

Kohlmeyer, F. W., & Herum, F. L. (1961). “Science and Engineering in Agriculture: A Historical Perspective”. Technology and Culture, 2(4), pp. 368-380.

Lakatos, I. (1971). History of science and its rational reconstructions.PSA 1970 (pp. 91-136): Springer.

Lucier, P. (2012). “The origins of pure and applied science in gilded age America”. Isis, 103(3), pp. 527-536.

Musson, A. E., & Robinson, E. (1969). Science and Technology in the Industrial Revolution. Manchester University Press.

Nanay, B. (2017). “Internal History Versus External History”. Philosophy, 92(2), pp. 207-230. doi: Doi: 10.1017/s0031819117000067.

Niiniluoto, I. (1993). “The Aim and Structure of Applied Research”. Erkenntnis, 38 (1), pp. 1-21.

Pais, A. (1982). Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford University Press, USA.

Pielke, R. (2012). “Basic Research as a Political Symbol”. Minerva, 50(3), pp. 339-361.

Rihll, T. E., & Tucker, J. V. (2002). “Practice makes perfect: knowledge of materials in classical Athens”. Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture, pp. 274-305.

Rowland, H. A. (1883). “A Plea for Pure Science”. Science, 2, pp. 242-250.

Schauz, D. (2014). “What is Basic Research? Insights from Historical Semantics”. Minerva, 52(3), pp. 273-328. doi: 10.1007/s11024-014-9255-0.

Shapin, S. (1992). “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen Through the Externalism-Internalism Debate”. History of science, 30(4), pp. 333-369.

Simon, H. A. (1968). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.

Stroup, A. (1987). “Royal Funding of the Parisian Académie Royale des Sciences During the 1690s”. Transactions of the American philosophical society, pp. 1-167.

Whewell, W. (1840). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. London: John W. Parker West Strand.

Williamson, A. W. (1870). A Plea for Pure Science: Being the Inaugural Lecture at the Opening of the Faculty of Science, in University College. London: Taylor & Francis.

Yaghmaie, A. (2017). “How to Characterise Pure and Applied Science”. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 31(02), pp. 133-149. doi: 10.1080/02698595.2018.1424763.

Yeo, R. (1985). “An Idol of the Market-Place: Baconianism in Nineteenth Century Britain”. History of science, 23(3), pp. 251-298