Thomas Kuhn與Imre Lakatos有關國際關係理論的爭論

Comment on the International Relation Theory Debate between Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos

廖舜右(Shun-Yo Liao)

《政治科學論叢》 29期 (2006/09) Pp. 31-48

https://doi.org/10.6166/TJPS.29(31-48)

摘要

Thomas Kuhn的科學革命概念，已對國際關係學門產生一種具副作用的普遍認知：即特定典範一旦勝出，將無法容許其他典範並存，而整個領域就會以勝利的典範為核心標準，演化為具整合性與一致性的學門。但本文則認為國際關係學門一直處於典範或理論間互有消長的競爭狀態，而國際關係學門的科學進步，並非源於任何特定典範所宣稱的真理，而是來自於這些典範競爭的運作結果。具備基本假設的特定典範，固然可看到實存世界的特定現象，但這些現象也只能由特定典範所指定的研究途徑，方能獲得解釋。而這些解釋並無法轉換至其他典範，也無法被歸納至更大的綜合性論述之內。科學革命概念只允許特定時空下一種特定典範的存在，這種論點無法解釋國際關係學門的實際發展；相對的，應用Imre Lakatos有關研究綱領間持續競爭的概念，不僅可提供多面向的解釋，也更符合國際關係理論的實際發展。

關鍵字

典範 ； 科學進步 ； 研究綱領 ； 科學革命 ； 國際關係理論

並列摘要

Thomas Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions has created a common belief in the field of international relation that one side will eventually triumph, and that the triumphant field will evolve as a coherent discipline based on the superior contributions of the winning paradigm. In contrast, I see the discipline as being constantly engaged in the debate between paradigms and theories. The progress of science in the field of international relations is a function of these disagreements, not a truth held by individual paradigm. Each paradigm with its various fundamental assumptions sees a side of reality that is important but can only be depicted from its own approach, not transformed into the other, or subsumed into some grand synthesis. Thomas Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions, which allows only one paradigm in the field at a time, is not plausible in the field of international relations because this would be the equivalent of asking us to use a magnifier or telescope alone for nature research conducted in nature; instead, the application of constant competition among approaches to international relations provides different dimensions and bring us closer to the reality that we are seeking. The progress in science comes from constant competition in approaches, with their inflexibility and rigid hardcore assumptions brought into question, resulting in a array of flexible and amended auxiliary assumptions. In a nutshell, not only does constant competition among approaches contribute to the progress of science, it also reduces the tension between material and ideational factors in the field.

並列關鍵字

Paradigm ； Progress of science ； Research program ； Scientific revolution ； International relation theory

參考文獻

Banks, M.(1984).Conflict in world society: a new perspective on international relations.New York:St. Martin's Press.

Burehill, S.,A. Linklater.(2001).Theories of International Relations.New York:St. Martin's Press.

Elman, C.,M. F. Elman.(1997).Lakatos and Neorealism: A Reply to Vasquez.American political Science Review.91(4),923-926.

Hollis, M.,S. Smith.(1990).Explaining and Understanding International Relations.Oxford:Oxford University Press.

James, P.(2002).International Relations and Scienific Progress: Structural Realism.Columbus:Ohio State University Press.