The social construction of what / Hacking (1999)

Citation - people

Keyword -

1. Why ask what?

2. Too many metaphor

3. What about the Natural Science?

Hacking discusses three “sticking points” in the debates on the epistemic authority of science: contingency, nominalism, and stability

在科學認識論權威的辯論中, 有三個關卡:

  • 三個客觀實在與建構論者的關卡[卡關點,絆腳石](sticking points)
    • Contingency (偶發的,權變的,非必然的): 科學發現的權變性, “things could be otherwise”
      To Hacking, contingency in science is to be found in the framing of the questions, but once questions are framed, the answers, the “contents” of a science, are noncontingent. [from]
    • Nominalism 唯名論
      Hacking identifies nominalism as the second “sticking point” in debates about scientific knowledge. Nominalism debates question the relationship between our names and categories as referents to the world-as-it-is. ‘Realists’ posit a correspondence, while nominalists posit a disjuncture. Hacking’s argument overall is weakest here, because, as he notes, realism is not treated as the opposite of nominalism anymore, but he does not review the alternatives. [from]
    • Stability 科學發現的固化, 社會建構論者認為是受到外在因素影響
      Finally, the problem of the stability of knowledge is at issue in ‘the science wars.’ Is the stability of knowledge the result of ‘getting it right,’ of the correspondence between scientists’ fact statements and the world out there, or it the stability of knowledge the result of ‘external’ factors, such as its institutionalization, social networks, and so on. [from]
  • 解釋無法擺脫社會情境的影響: 科學家用自己的概念去理解猴子的行為

4. Madness:Biological or Constructed?

5. Kind-making: The case of child abuse

child abuse = 摧殘兒童;虐待兒童

  • real vs. social constructing of concept.
    • The object is real(exist): true.
    • The idea(concept) is socially constructed: true.
    • concept real: social constructed concept is real:
      • SRA: Satanic ritual abuse

6. Weapons research

7. Rocks

8. The end of Captain Cook