Steven Shapin is the Franklin L. Ford Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University.
Simon Schaffer is professor of history of science at the University of Cambridge.
"Leviathan and the Air-Pump" examines the conflicts over the value and propriety of experimental methods between two major seventeenth-century thinkers: Thomas Hobbes, author of the political treatise "Leviathan" and vehement critic of systematic experimentation in natural philosophy, and Robert Boyle, mechanical philosopher and owner of the newly invented air-pump. The issues at stake in their disputes ranged from the physical integrity of the air-pump to the intellectual integrity of the knowledge it might yield. Both Boyle and Hobbes were looking for ways of establishing knowledge that did not decay into ad hominem attacks and political division. Boyle proposed the experiment as cure. He argued that facts should be manufactured by machines like the air-pump so that gentlemen could witness the experiments and produce knowledge that everyone agreed on. Hobbes, by contrast, looked for natural law and viewed experiments as the artificial, unreliable products of an exclusive guild. The new approaches taken in "Leviathan and the Air-Pump" have been enormously influential on historical studies of science. Shapin and Schaffer found a moment of scientific revolution and showed how key scientific givens - facts, interpretations, experiment, truth - were fundamental to a new political order. Shapin and Schaffer were also innovative in their ethnographic approach. Attempting to understand the work habits, rituals, and social structures of a remote, unfamiliar group, they argued that politics were tied up in what scientists did, rather than what they said. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer use the confrontation between Hobbes and Boyle as a way of understanding what was at stake in the early history of scientific experimentation. They describe the protagonists' divergent views of natural knowledge, and situate the Hobbes-Boyle disputes within contemporary debates over the role of intellectuals in public life and the problems of social order and assent in Restoration England. In a new introduction, the authors describe how science and its social context were understood when this book was first published, and how the study of the history of science has changed since then.
王 哲① 刘 兵② (清华大学人文社会科学学院科学技术与社会研究所,北京,100084) 内容摘要:1985年,《利维坦与空气泵》(Leviathan and the Air-Pump)一书出版以来国内外学者对此书都给予了高度的重视,但大多集中在对社会因素的关注上,而本文作者则着重分析了此书的科学...
评分王 哲① 刘 兵② (清华大学人文社会科学学院科学技术与社会研究所,北京,100084) 内容摘要:1985年,《利维坦与空气泵》(Leviathan and the Air-Pump)一书出版以来国内外学者对此书都给予了高度的重视,但大多集中在对社会因素的关注上,而本文作者则着重分析了此书的科学...
评分今天打开豆瓣猜,看到了这本书。豆瓣竟然把它归类为科普,实在让我吃惊不小。作为一本科学建构主义的“经典”之作,它被翻译成中文其实是迟早的事(中华大地上的遗老遗少正在疯狂的借用“后现代主义”的胡言乱语),我实在不忍心放过评价这本书的机会,让国人看清楚这本书到底...
评分王 哲① 刘 兵② (清华大学人文社会科学学院科学技术与社会研究所,北京,100084) 内容摘要:1985年,《利维坦与空气泵》(Leviathan and the Air-Pump)一书出版以来国内外学者对此书都给予了高度的重视,但大多集中在对社会因素的关注上,而本文作者则着重分析了此书的科学...
评分“本书是一项科学知识社会学的演练。” 以“解答可能在于‘成员说法’(member's account)和‘外人说法’(stranger's account)之间的差别“为起点,作者尝试通过”扮演外人“的方法,”打破环绕在以实验生产知识之方法的周围那种不证自明的光环“。 ”在玻意耳的实验纲领中看...
粗略地看了,长知识了......
评分粗略地看了,长知识了......
评分波义尔自称他的实验报告使用的是naked laguage(沙漠般清楚明白的语言),倒是和英美哲学与历史的学术文风颇像。
评分粗略地看了,长知识了......
评分终于读了这本神书。sociology of science的经典之作。提出intellectual space的概念,梳理了17世纪英国knowledge和social order的关系。读完觉得霍布斯其实是个很可爱的人。另外要赞这本书的写作,相当严谨清晰
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.wenda123.org All Rights Reserved. 图书目录大全 版权所有