- 作者： 徐光台
- 作者服務機構： 國立清華大學通識教育中心/歷史研究所
- 中文摘要：
原先接受常態科學教育物理專業訓練的孔恩，1947年為哈佛大學非主修科學的學生開授科學史的通識課程，進而轉變了他對科學發展的看法。在《結構》一書中，他試圖從科學史、科學哲學、與科學教育三個領域，來證驗科學發展不是直線累積的，而是通過科學革命造成的結構性轉換。然而，西格爾(Siegel)批判孔恩《結構》中扭曲了科學史在科學教育中的教學，而引發了西格爾與布魯西(Brush)間的爭議。因此，本文旨在闡明《結構》中所談的科學教育，並試圖藉此來解決西格爾與布魯西間的爭議。
筆者發現，《結構》中存在著兩種科學教育：哈佛大學的科學通識教育與一般訓練科學家的科學教育。前者啟發孔恩探討科學史語科學哲學後，並以科學史的研究來支持科學發展是革命性的結構轉變，也就是典範的轉換。後者通過科學教科書來推展掌握優勢的典範，消除了或扭曲了科學革命的歷史過程，而展現出科學是直線累積的進步。依此，《結構》中引用一般訓練科學家的科學教育的原意，在於它是科學革命結構性轉換的反例。西格爾不清楚孔恩引用一般訓練科學家的科學教育的原意，所以，他的指控難以成立。 - 英文摘要：
In 1947, Thomas Kuhn, a Harvard University Ph.D. candicate trained as a practitioner of normal science in physics, taught a history of science course in general education for non-science major students. After that, he went on to reform his idea of scientific development, and in 1962 he published the Structure, which covers the history and philosophy of science as well as science education in an endeavor to demonstrate that scientific development is not through the accumulation of individual discoveries, but the structural change as revolutions. However, Kuhn was criticized by Siegel for his distortion of history of science in science education, resulting in a disputation between Siegel and Brush. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain “science education” as stated in the Structure, and to find a solution for the disputation between Siegel and Brush.
There are two kinds of science education mentioned in the Structure: teaching the history of science in general education as a science course for nonscience major students and science education for the practitioner of normal science. The former inspired Kuhn to explore the history and philosophy of science, and led him to regard scientific development as revolutionary or structural change; the latter, experienced by Kuhn himself, made him reflect how the history of science is distorts in science textbooks. The author finds that Kuhn’s intent of mentioning science education in the Structure is to explain the invisibility of scientific revolutions. It is a counterexample to scientific revolutions. Siegel does not understand Kuhn’s intent, therefore, his argument is insubstantial. - 中文關鍵字： Kuhn; 《科學革命的結構》; 科學教育; Siegel與Brush的爭議
- 英文關鍵字： Kuhn; The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Science education; The disputation between Siegel and Brush
