阿波罗登月质疑与公众科学话语反思

有关阿波罗登月工程真实性的质疑肇始于20世纪70年代，世纪之交以来，国内外对这一问题的关注程度日渐提升，正在形成一场社会公众领域的言说与论战。本文从质疑事件本身入手，在全景考察质疑观点的基础上，对有关登月真伪性的论战进行分析，意在探寻由此事件所反映的社会公众在对待科学问题上的态度转变与话语变迁。     

“科学论战”中的皮尔逊

卡尔·皮尔逊[1]（KarlPearson，1857-1936）是英国著名的哲人科学家、百科全书式的学者，著有科学哲学名著《科学的规范》（1892）。皮尔逊的思想在本世纪初应运而来，通过中国科学社的《科学》杂志的介绍、科玄论战和《科学的规范》的翻译在中国学术界广为人知。本文着重论述在科言论战中，以丁文江[2]为首的科学派对皮尔逊思想的引用。介绍、理解及引申，和以张君劢为首的玄学派对皮尔逊思想的反诘、批评、误解与曲解，对中国现代思想史上这一独特的插曲作了某些探讨。作者从中看到：1．本世纪初叶，批判学派对中国科学界、思想界和学术界的影响超出了人们的想像；2．当时中国先进的知识分子对科学哲学和科学精神的理解远远超过50-70年代的学人，在对科学文化意蕴的把握上乃至高于今人。     

科学界的反克隆人运动:理由及选择

在过去克隆人的呼声高涨时,科学界曾掀起了一场"反克隆人运动".通过分析这场运动的理由和选择,不仅让我们对现代科技工作者的职业道德、社会责任和科研态度等问题有了新认识,又让我们懂得只有大力发展治疗性克隆,才是对克隆技术价值的真正扬弃.     

从“人类起源之争”到“转基因食品大战”——关于“科学论战”在中国的思考

"科学论战"是由"科学"引发并主战一方的学术论战乃至社会论战。梳理与中国密切相关的两场"科学论战"——"人类起源之争"和"转基因食品大战",及其中中西方学界,科学与人文领域学者,科学家与大众等群体间的差异和对话,发现论战背后的"利益共同体""民族主义""对话机制"等问题及"德先生与赛先生"的曲折发展引人深思。     

落日余晖——科玄论战中的康有为

学界一般认为,康有为并未参与一个世纪前那场影响深远的科玄论战。实际上,康有为在1923年北上演讲中谈及相关论题,可以说间接而实质性地参与了那场论战。他通过“显微”思想强调科学之于人生观的意义,借助“电通”思想重诂儒学核心概念,利用现代天文知识发挥出见泰忘忧的“天游”思想。他推崇科学之于个人思想与国家发展的作用,但不承认科学的万能。他认为欧战的肇因不在科学与物质的发展,而在精神文明的缺位。这种不乏辩证思维的整全性立场与科学派和玄学派异中有同、同中有异。他提出保存国粹讲求物质的双重救国方案,体现了中西文明互补的世界主义立场。从今天的视角来看,也可以说康有为发了弥合科学与人文两种文化、调和唯科学与反科学两种主义的先声。     

“克隆人”技术与其社会现象背后的华而不实性——对“克隆人”技术与社会的另类解读

“克隆人”是当今世界的流行话语，但在它的背后却深藏着一种华而不实性。我们该如何看待克隆人技术，我们又该如何为生物技术的健康发展创造良好的社会环境呢？我们需要的只是平静、踏实和秩序。     

"中美类克隆人试验"始末

《华尔街日报》一则消息称,美国纽约大学教授詹姆斯·格里福与广东中山大学合作,在广州进行了一次3基因受孕试验。该试验由于被指类似于克隆人技术,而且将出现一个孩子有3个父母的伦理问题,而备受关注。     

“科玄论战”与马克思主义

爆发于1923年的"科玄论战"涉及的问题至今尚未彻底澄清,当初"胜负已定"的断言显然经不起时间的检验。90年来,学术界一直对论战保持较高的研究热度,在不同历史语境下对其进行新的解读,从而构成了"科玄论战"的新的组成部分。重新考察"科玄论战"以及90年来学界对其研究过程,就会发现"科玄"都有所发展,并对马克思主义的发展提供了营养,也为马克思主义获得了更多的话语权。     

普罗米修斯

21世纪末，人类的科技水平已高度发达，克隆人技术和宇宙航行早已实现，不再是梦想。与此同时。许多科学家仍孜孜不倦追索着人类起源的秘密与真相。     

必要的张力:在科学与人文之间--"后现代科学观与科学大战"学术研讨会综述

科学与人文两种文化之争是20世纪以来世界文化论争的一个焦点，特别是20世纪末，爆发了席卷全球的“科学大战”。这场史无前例的大论战的主线，就是后现代科学观和正统科学观之间的分歧和对立，很多著名科学家和人文学者都卷入激烈的争论之中。这场论战不仅在世界文化史上具有深远的意义，对我国的文化建设和科技发展也势必产生重大影响。     

爱因斯坦、毕加索,科学、艺术

That Maxwell' s electrodynamics the way in which it is usually understood leads to asymmetries that do not appear in the phenomena is well known. Albert Einstein The painter' s studio should be a laboratory. There one does not make art in the manner of a monkey, one invents. Painting is a play of the mind.     

Complexity, Networks, and Non-Uniqueness

The aim of the paper is to introduce some of the history and key concepts of network science to a philosophical audience, and to highlight a crucial—and often problematic—presumption that underlies the network approach to complex systems. Network scientists often talk of “the structure” of a given complex system or phenomenon, which encourages the view that there is a unique and privileged structure inherent to the system, and that the aim of a network model is to delineate this structure. I argue that this sort of naïve realism about structure is not a coherent or plausible position, especially given the multiplicity of types of entities and relations that can feature as nodes and links in complex networks.     

Theories,theoretical models,truth

This paper was written with two aims in mind. A large part of it is just an exposition of Tarski's theory of truth. Philosophers do not agree on how Tarski's theory is related to their investigations. Some of them doubt whether that theory has any relevance to philosophical issues and in particular whether it can be applied in dealing with the problems of philosophy (theory) of science.In this paper I argue that Tarski's chief concern was the following question. Suppose a language L belongs to the class of languages for which, in full accordance with some formal conditions set in advance, we are able to define the class of all the semantic interpretations the language may acquire. Every interpretation of L can be viewed as a certain structure to which the expressions of the language may refer. Suppose that a specific interpretation of the language L was singled out as the intended one. Suppose, moreover, that the intended interpretation can be characterized in a metalanguage L ⁺. If the above assumptions are satisfied, can the notion of truth for L be defined in the metalanguage L ⁺ and, if it can, how can this be done?     

Introduction. Meaningfulness,Volunteers, Citizenship

This introductory article starts by describing the genesis of this special issue and the interconnection of its topics. The editors offer a variety of reading entries into the key-note articles and responses. The article reconstructs the research interests underpinning the idea of integrating meaningfulness, volunteers and citizenship. It highlights the explicit interdisciplinary design of the special issue, and shows how the key-note authors, and their respondents, weave connections between meaningfulness, volunteering and citizenship. And, finally, the editors bring the background understandings of the key-note papers to the foreground, and reconstruct a non-intentional meta-level discussion on two fundamental concepts and their interplay: self and world.