查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Kuhn「結構」中所談的科學教育--兼論Siegel與Brush的爭議=Science Education in Thomas Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions: With a Solution for the Disputation between Siegel and Brush |
---|---|
作 者 | 徐光台; | 書刊名 | 科學教育學刊 |
卷 期 | 5:3 1997.09[民86.09] |
頁 次 | 頁391-418 |
分類號 | 520.11 |
關鍵詞 | 科學革命的結構; 科學教育; Siegel與Brush的爭議; Kuhn; The structure of scientific revolutions; Science education; The disputation between siegel and brush; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 原先接受常態科學教育物理專業訓練的孔恩,1947年為哈佛大學非主修科學的學生開授科學史的通課程,進而轉變了他對科學發展的看法。在《結構》一書中,他試圖從科學史、科學哲學、與科學教育三個領域,來証驗科學發展不是直線累積的,而是通過科學革命造成的結構性轉換。然而,西格爾與布魯西(Brush)間的爭議。因此,本文旨在闡明《結構》中所談的學教育,並試圖籍此來解決西格爾與布魯西間的爭議。 筆者發現,《結構》中存在著兩種科學教育:哈佛大學的科學通教育與一般訓練科學家的科學教育。前者啟發孔恩探討科學與科學哲學後,並以科學史的研來支持科學發展是革命性的結構轉變,也就是典範的轉換。後者通過科學教書來推展掌握勢的典範,消後或扭曲了科學革命的歷史過程,而展現出科學是直線累積的進步。依此,《結構》中引用一般訓練科學家的科學教育的原意,在於它是科學革命結構性轉換的反例。西格爾不清楚孔恩引用一般訓練科學家的科學教育的原意,所以,他的指控難以成立。 |
英文摘要 | In 1947, Thomas Kuhn, a Harvard University Ph.D. candicate trained as a practitioner of normal science in physics, taught a history of science course in general education for non-science major students. After that, he went on to reform his idea of scientific development, and in 1962 the published the Structure, which covers the history and philosophy of science as well as science education in an endeavor to demonstrate that scientific development is not through the accumulation of individual discoveries, but the structural change as revolutions. However, Kuhn was criticized by Siegel for his distortion of history of science in science education, resulting in a disputation between Siegel and Brush. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain "science education" as stated in the Structure, and to find a solution for the disputation between Siegel and Brush. There are two kinds of science education mentioned in the Structure: teaching the history of science in general education as a science course for non-science major students and science education for the practitioner of normal science. The former inspired Kuhn to explore the history and philosophy of since, and led him to regard scientific development as revolutionary or structural change; the latter, experienced by Kuhn himself, made him reflect how the history of science is distorts in science textbooks. The author finds that Kuhn's intent of mentioning science education in the Structure is to explain the invisibility of scientific revolutions. It is a counterexample to scientific revolutions. Siegel does not understand Kuhn's intent, therefore, his argument is insubstantial. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。