The STS Challenge to Philosophy of Science in Taiwan

Abstract

This article discusses the relation between the tradition of the philosophy of science and the tradition of science, technology, and society (STS) studies in Taiwan. The swiftly rising popularity of STS studies has issued a challenge to philosophy of science, whose practitioners have amounted to a relatively small community. The STS challenge is measurable in the increase in the number of scholars who have lost interest in philosophical debates. They doubted that these sorts of debates were far from the reality of science, technology, and society. Since philosophical debate within STS studies is a form peculiar to philosophy of science, this lack of interest can be read as symptomatic of a general skepticism on the necessity of philosophy of science. This paper argues that philosophy of science can provide useful models for the development of STS studies in Taiwan. Furthermore, philosophy of science can benefit from the rise of STS studies, so long as philosophers respond to the challenge. This paper sets out several strategies for such responses, and suggests that the philosophy of science should play a crucial role. This suggestion raises the question of whether philosophers of science are more suitable interlocutors to the scholars of STS studies than are philosophers of technology. Abstract本文討論台灣的科學哲學傳統和科技與社會研究的傳統，兩者 之間的關係。科技與社會研究在台灣快速崛起，對於相對少數的科學哲學構 成一個挑戰；一些研究者認為某種哲學辯論對於理解科技與社會無所助益、 質疑它們脫離社會現實。筆者認為，科技與社會的哲學辯論是一種特別的科 學哲學，因此這種質疑標誌了對科學哲學必要性的一般懷疑。本文爭論，科 學哲學可以對科技與社會研究的發展提供有用的模型；反過來說，它也能受 益於對方，只要科學哲學家能認真地回應科技與社會研究的挑戰。本文提出 I am greatly thankful to the two anonymous reviewers for their highly valuable comments and suggestions. The first reviewer helped me improve many sections of the article, especially the sixth. The second reviewer reminded me of four important lines that I failed to address. I regret that I was not able to remedy this failing completely, due in part to restrictions on the length of the article. My future research will, I hope, take me in a direction pointed to by both referees. I also thank Sam Gilbert for his hard copyediting. This paper is part of