查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- Scientific History Revised: Objectivity, Impartiality, Utility, and Relativity in American Historiography 1890-1946
- 反省史學平正法的討論
- 從科學史與科學哲學探討中小學的STS教育改革
- 科學史課文對於科學理論之閱讀學習的效果
- 融入科學史之教學對學生了解科學本質之影響
- 科學史對高中學生學習成就之影響
- 科學史融入基礎理化教學之行動研究
- 晚明美學之主體體驗的美感型態
- 免洗餐具的誕生:醫學知識在臺灣的社會性格分析
- 「孔恩一生」的歷史與社會脈絡--評吳以義著《庫恩》一書 (臺北市:東大圖書公司, 1996)
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Scientific History Revised: Objectivity, Impartiality, Utility, and Relativity in American Historiography 1890-1946=科學史學的再思:一八九0至一九四六間美國史學中有關客觀性,公正性,功用性,與相對性的討論 |
---|---|
作 者 | 鄧世安; | 書刊名 | 輔仁歷史學報 |
卷 期 | 9 1998.06[民87.06] |
頁 次 | 頁261-292 |
分類號 | 752.18 |
關鍵詞 | 世界觀; 情懷; 科學史; 求真; 客觀性; 知識應用; 功用性; 歷史相對主義; Weltanschauung; Ethos; Scientific history; Truth-searching; Objectivity; Knowledge-applying; Utility; Historical relativism; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 本文旨在對一八九○至一九四六年間美國史學之發展提出一種新的解釋。在這段期間,美國史學界受到歷史相對主義的衝擊而修正了以往對史學之科學性的看法。 大體而言,本文採取觀念史的作法,試圖透過時代流行觀念之演變來觀照史學史之發展。實際的作法則是針對美國專業史家在論述中一些常用字眼的轉化,來剖析美國科學史學發展的脈絡。因此,筆者挑選了當時具代表性、又領袖群倫的史家如特納(Fredrick J. Turner)、羅賓遜(James H. Robinson)、具爾德(Charles A. Beard)、和具克(Carl L. Becker)等,作為本文考察的對象。至於關鍵性的字眼則包括「求真情懷」,「客觀性」,「公正性」,「求用情懷」,「功用性」,「相對性」等等。藉著評析這些史家對這些關鍵性之觀念的討論,我們可以整理出一條理解美國科學史學的線索。 根據筆者的分析,美國文人史家的傳統、歐洲實證史學、以及美國特有的實用主義共同促成了流行於一九三○年代的歷史相對主義。而歷史相對主義正代表著史學研究的大方向上,由前一時期單純求真理的理想,一變而為如何應用歷史知識的關切。這一轉變導致美國史學界對歷史科學性的再思。從此,史家們雖然依舊堅持史學的科學方法,但他們再也無法像從前那樣天真的擁抱歷史客觀性的理想。 藉此種觀念史的研究方式,我們會對這一關鍵時期美國史學的發展有一更清晰的了解,同時對美國史學這門行業的性質也會有更深一層的體認。 |
英文摘要 | In this paper I offer a re-interpretation of the development of American historiography between 1890 to 1946 in which historical relativism had shattered the scientific facade of American historical profession. The approach which I adopted is to diagram the configuration of certain key ideas prevailed among American professional historians in this period. Those ideas included truth ethos, objectivity, impartiality, knowledge-applying, utility, relativity...etc. By examining the leading American historians in this period, such as Frederick J. Turner, James H. Robinson, Charles A. Beard, and Carl L. Becker, and their discussions around these key ideas, I believe that I have presented a clue to the development of American scientific historiography. In my analysis, the tradition of men of letters, European positivist historiography, and the pragmatic climate of opinion altogether contributed to the formation of historical relativism prevailing in the 1930s. And the latter represented a shift of emphasis in historical study from its former truth-seeking ideal to a knowledge-applying orientation. The result of this was a revision but not a renunciation of scientific historiography. Historians thereafter could hardly embrace the naive ideal of objectivity with a good conscience, though they never abandoned the scientific method of their predecessors. I believe that through this investigation we can have not only a clearer perception of the development of American historiography in this crucial period, but also a better view of the nature of American historical enterprises. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。