知識辯證的微觀動態：當代生物科學期刊如何接受一篇論文

現代科學家是一種以發現新知為目標的職業。研究者在實作過程經常會面對兩道挑戰：一、如何證成新知；二、說服別人。這些問題的辯證是極為動態的過程。綜合一般性的經驗以及投稿過程之通訊辯駁信為文本基礎，本文嘗試類比神經解剖學中「認知地圖、地標辨識、方向感」這三個思維類型作為論述架構，來定義「整體概念架構、數據評價、邏輯判斷」及其延伸之十項細則的內容，作為討論架構，來分析科學實作中，知識辯證的動態。整體概念架構的內容包括兩子項：1.研究結論的整體印象，2.產生新的觀念與新的研究方案；數據評價問題包括五子項：1.材料及技術的可信度，2.適當的控制組/合宜的實驗設計，3.明確的事實，4.比較性的觀測值差異明顯，5.論斷所需資料之有無；邏輯推論則包括三子項：1.合於常理的判讀，2.符合典範內的解釋，3.解釋清晰/不矛盾。雖然研究的議題及方法學不同，在一般性科學討論的印象中，以「材料及技術可信度」以及「實驗資料不夠」是發生率最高的兩則提問子項。若以辯駁信為檢驗文本，各子項出現的發生率則與一般性印象調查略有不同。在總共223則審查提問中，數據評價問題的提問數是155次，為每一篇文章中產生爭論最多的項目。其他爭議的發生率包括，38次是邏輯檢驗的問題，17次是整體概念架構的問題，無法歸類的議題只有13次。這種偏重在經驗的提問方式，反映出生物科學是一種實存、實證科學的特質。在回應質疑的策略中，最常出現的四種依序是：1.交代推論所需的實驗證據，2.加強說明，3.引用文獻，提供典範內的解釋，4.提供清楚，明顯的資料。總計與物質證據有關的回應策略，接近一半。總而言之，「整體概念架構、數據評價、邏輯判斷」這三個層面構成認知元素，用來分析科學家之間的對話，不只可以顯示經驗理性，納入科學社群所建構的共識(典範)，更指出，經驗下所認知的自然現象才是判斷真偽的基礎。

關鍵字

生物學實作；認知；辯證動態；辯駁信

並列摘要

Scientists today face two challenges in their daily professional activities of discovering facts and converting them into new knowledge: how to contribute solid scientific discoveries and how to convince their colleagues that they have. In analyzing this dynamic dialectic, I apply a neuroanatomy-based, three-level analytical framework of cognitive mapping, sensory landmarks (observable cues), and judgment of truth to reveal the choice underlying successful rebuttals of scientific journals in medical biology. The subcategories of cognitive mapping are the overall impression of conclusion and new insight of the study. The subcategories of sensory landmarks include reliability of materials and methods, adequate experimental design with appropriate control group, facts as such, significance of comparative results, and sufficient evidence. The subcategories of judgment of truth are fitting in the common sense interpretation of the scientific community, paradigm coherence, and clarity without contradiction. Despite differences in topics and methodology, the most frequent critiques during reviewing process are issues about sensory landmarks that consists 155 questions. 38 questions belong to judgment of truth and 17 to cognitive mapping. Only 13 of the reviewers' questions do not fit in this analytical framework. Interestingly, results in a survey of 19 academic biologists also revealed that reliability of material/methodology and insufficient data to support the conclusion are two frequent critiques. The reply strategies used by the authors in order is 1. defend the legitimacy of experimental material and methods, 2. strengthen description, 3. quote references/explain within paradigm, 4. provide clear cut evidence. Overall, most of replies are to provide solid observable facts that are acceptable for the particular scientific community. Appling this three-level analytical framework to evaluate the logic of scientific discussion, one is able to identify rationalism on sensory experience and incorporate new findings into established paradigm. Most importantly, it reveals that cognitive facts are the fundamental bases of scientific judgment.