近代中国科学救国思潮研究综述

新中国成立以来,学术界对近代科学救国思潮的研究经历了两个阶段:一是在建国后至1980年,科学救国思潮被视为资产阶级改良主义的反动思潮而长期受到学界的否定和批判;二是在1980年代以来,学界对科学救国思潮的研究开始转变,逐渐实事求是地、历史地看待科学救国思潮。从主观的评价逐步转到客观的辨析该思潮在近代中国所起的作用上来,开始重新审视科学救国论者的思想和言行。特别是进入21世纪后,研究出现了新的趋势,有学者开始尝试对科学救国思潮的理论体系、科学救国与科教兴国的关系等问题进行探讨。     

立宪乎，共和乎:辛亥革命前后杨度的心路历程

杨度的政治主张在辛亥革命前后发生了急剧转向:从主张君主立宪转向赞同民主立宪,并组织共和促进会,为建立民主共和制度而呼号。杨度政治主张的这种转变,是迫于客观形势的暂时策略,还是政治思想的根本转变?学界向来有不同看法。本文认为,杨度从主张君主立宪向赞同民主共和的转变,是一种暂时性的策略,并不是其政治主张的根本改变,更不能说他根本放弃了孜孜追求的君主立宪理想而倾向民主共和。从总体上看,杨度仍然是君主立宪的信奉者,赞同共和制度只是权宜之计,不过君主立宪的"君主"内涵有了根本不同:立宪君主不再是清帝,而是一代枭雄袁世凯。正是抱定借"君主"以实现立宪的思路,杨度才会撰写《君宪救国论》并发起筹安会,为袁世凯复辟帝制大造舆论。     

奥克肖特论政治思想史研究

迈克尔·奥克肖特是20世纪英美学界治政治思想史名家。相比于此领域几种主要的研究路径,其对政治思想史研究所作的反思和讨论具有独到的学术价值,因而不容忽视。第一,奥克肖特认为,政治思想之内涵不是单义的,不可以定义的方式把握之,而需要在学术传统中探寻政治思想的范围。第二,因为政治思想具有不同的层次,所以政治思想史研究中历史的观点和哲学的观点可以并行不悖。第三,奥克肖特反对一种找寻作者式的研究路径,但其观点与伽达默尔的诠释学亦有所分别。第四,奥克肖特批评政治思想史研究中实践考量的渗入,而提倡一种为历史而历史的纯粹研究的态度。当然,奥克肖特式的融贯论没有完全解决历史真实性的问题,历史与实践两分的哲学构想,也缺少必要的学理支撑,这是其政治思想史研究的局限所在。     

宋明浙东事功学与心学及其合流——兼论王学的思想来源及性质

南宋以后,中国古代思想文化进入了它的转型期.这一时期里,一方面,代表中国封建中世纪后期正统思想的朱熹理学出现并逐渐确立了它的地位;另一方面,也出现了两股大的具鲜明的反经学和理学倾向的革新思潮,这便是事功学与心学.事功学与心学均以浙江为主要发祥地,并一开始便在浙江形成深厚的思想与学术基础,构成南宋以后浙东学术的主流.而宋明浙东思想与学术主流的流变过程,其实也就是事功学与心学各自发展与相互融合的过程.     

论美国高校德育对我国的启示

实现思想政治教育现代化是当前时代的客观要求,借鉴吸收美国的高校德育,对于我们具有重要的启示。美国高校德育的主要途径包括课堂课程教育和课外活动等途径。其对我国的启示有:(一)坚持道德教育的政治性和阶级性;(二)课程设置注意层次性和连续性;(三)灌输与渗透相结合的教学;(四)变革“纯”道德知识教育;(五)高度重视道德实践活动。     

论新启蒙运动

新启蒙运动是中国共产党为配合抗日民族统一战线的建立而在思想文化领域里发起的一场运动.它吸引了一些具有自由主义倾向的知识界人士参加.但是从一开始,这一运动内部就充满分歧,共产党人和自由主义者对"思想自由"、"新哲学"、"理性"等概念的解释完全不同.共产党人还为新启蒙运动设定了长远的政治目标和现实的政治斗争对象.抗战进入相持阶段后,新启蒙运动的口号已不适应变化了的形势,共产党人从此不再热心于新启蒙运动,取而代之的是学术中国化运动.     

《通鉴胡注表微》与陈垣先生的爱国思想

陈垣先生的史学著作以饱含传统的爱国主义思想而闻名海内外 ,《通鉴胡注表微》就是一部典型的弘扬中华民族爱国、救国、强国精神的史学杰作。书中全面而系统地反映了作者的爱国思想 ,自始至终都洋溢着他热爱祖国的坚定信念。他认为 :爱国就是要热爱“父母国” ;爱国者就应救国 ;爱国精神的集中表现是胸怀祖国 ,对祖国尽职尽责 ;而救国之举主要表现为自立自强 ,救亡图存。作为执政者 ,爱国就是要热爱民众 ,安定民心 ,顺应民意 ;作为史学家 ,爱国就是要有超越前人的史学成果 ,通观历代兴亡史实 ,识其成败得失与诒谋臧否 ,为国家自强提供可资借鉴的历史经验 ;作为教育家 ,爱国就是要提倡、振兴国学 ,弘扬和发展中国的学术文化 ,为国争光。     

美国“地区研究”兴起的历史考察

太平洋战争爆发后,特别是冷战初期,美国联邦政府、三大私人基金会以及相当一部分学者逐渐意识到深入了解非西方世界对维护国家安全的重要性,着手共同推动"地区研究"。联邦政府、私人基金会和学者三位一体体制运作的结果是复杂的:地区研究在迅速成长为一门显学的同时也不可避免地在很大程度上沦为政治的附庸;在满足了国家对地区专家和知识需求的同时也为一些地区研究者挑战美国对非西方世界的政策创造了条件。就美国地区研究兴起与国家安全考虑的密切关系而言,政治没有给学术留出太多独立生存的空间,而知识分子本身也并非都希望远离政治,学术与政治难以彻底分离。     

武汉少数民族概述

(一)人口 分布 结构——一、文化结构,二、职业结构;(二)族源——一、回族.二、蒙古族,三、满族.四、土家族,五、苗族及其他少数民族;(三)经济生活;(四)政治生活;(五)风俗习惯;(六)文化艺术生活     

晚清中国政治转型与公民教育思想的兴起

晚清时期,随着西方对中国侵略日益加剧,中国开始出现全面政治危机。在此背景之下,中国各领域相继产生了以自强御侮为主要目标的革新运动,公民教育思想的兴起即为重要代表之一。作为一种政治性极强的教育理念,源于西方的公民教育思想在晚清中国的生成,固然是中国传统教育制度向近代转型的必然结果,但却更体现了当时中国学习西方、改造国民性及国家建构等多重政治诉求。政治转型因素对晚清公民教育思想兴起所具有的决定性影响,不但使得这种公民教育思想从一开始就有着政治性大于社会性、工具性大于价值性等教育救国性质,而且使其在基本内涵及时代特征等方面都与西方原生性公民教育思想之间形成了一定的差别。     

西方“学者传统”的科学观述评

西方科学发展史上学者传统的科学观把对知识和真理的追求视为科学的目标和动力,认为科学是与经济利益无关的一种纯学术活动。这种科学观一方面激发了科学家投身科学、献身真理的勇气,倡导了一种纯洁的学术风气;另一方面,它又忽视了科学与社会生产之间的联系,对科学本身的发展和人类文化的丰富性、多样化是不利的。     

HISTORY/PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE: SOME LESSONS FOR PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Rheinberger's brief history brings into sharp profile the importance of history of science for a philosophical understanding of historical practice. Rheinberger presents thought about the nature of science by leading scientists and their interpreters over the course of the twentieth century as emphasizing increasingly the local and developmental character of their learning practices, thus making the conception of knowledge dependent upon historical experience, “historicizing epistemology.” Linking his account of thought about science to his own work on “experimental systems,” I draw extensive parallels with other work in the local history of science (the ideas of Latour, Pickering, Rouse, and others) and consider the epistemological implications both for the relation between history and philosophy of science and between history and theory more broadly. In doing so, I suggest that the long‐standing gap between the natural sciences and history as a “human science” has been significantly bridged by the insistence upon the local, mediated, indeed “historicized epistemology” of actual science.     

THE MISSING NARRATIVIST TURN IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SCIENCE

The narrativist turn of the 1970s and 1980s transformed the discussion of general history. With the rejection of Rankean historical realism, the focus shifted to the historian as a narrator and on narratives as literary products. Oddly, the historiography of science took a turn in the opposite direction at the same time. The social turn in the historiography of science emphasized studying science as a material and practical activity with traceable and documentable traits. This empirization of the field has led to an understanding that history of science could be directly describable from scientific practice alone without acknowledging the role of the historian as a constructor of narratives about these practices. Contemporary historians of science tend to be critical of science's ability to describe its object—nature, as it is—but they often are not similarly skeptical of their own abilities to describe their object: past science, as it is. I will argue that historiography of science can only gain from a belated narrativist turn.     

Neurognostics Answer

Although many individuals contributed to the development of the science of cerebral localization, its conceptual framework is the work of a single man—John Hughlings Jackson (1835–1911), a Victorian physician practicing in London. Hughlings Jackson's formulation of a neurological science consisted of an axiomatic basis, an experimental methodology, and a clinical neurophysiology. His axiom—that the brain is an exclusively sensorimotor machine—separated neurology from psychiatry and established a rigorous and sophisticated structure for the brain and mind. Hughlings Jackson's experimental method utilized the focal lesion as a probe of brain function and created an evolutionary structure of somatotopic representation to explain clinical neurophysiology. His scientific theory of cerebral localization can be described as a weighted ordinal representation. Hughlings Jackson's theory of weighted ordinal representation forms the scientific basis for modern neurology. Though this science is utilized daily by every neurologist and forms the basis of neuroscience, the consequences of Hughlings Jackson's ideas are still not generally appreciated. For example, they imply the intrinsic inconsistency of some modern fields of neuroscience and neurology. Thus, “cognitive imaging” and the “neurology of art”—two topics of modern interest—are fundamentally oxymoronic according to the science of cerebral localization. Neuroscientists, therefore, still have much to learn from John Hughlings Jackson.     

Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Wissenschaftsphilosophie – Einführende Bemerkungen

History of Science and Philosophy of Science. Introductory Remarks. This article introduces two special issues of the journal History of Science Reports (Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte) with contributions on the relationships of history and philosophy of science since the seventeenth century. The introduction begins with a brief reminder of Thomas Kuhn's provocative discussion of the relationship in the 1970s, placing it in the context of the debate of the period over whether the foundation of university departments for History and Philosophy of Science in the United States had led to a mere “marriage of convenience” or something more. Following this the paper briefly outlines the transformative impact of the “practical turn” in both philosophy and history of science since the 1990s, and contends that the relationship of history and philosophy of science has nonetheless become increasingly distant over time. This is due in large part to the professionalisation of history of science and to the recent turn to cultural approaches in that field; both trends have led to the adoption of strictly historicist rather than analytical perspectives on knowledge. General historians, too, are paying more attention to the increasing impact of science and technology, but have at most instrumental use for philosophical perspectives. Thus, the distinct possibility arises that the debate between historical and analytical approaches in philosophy of science is becoming a conversation within one discipline rather than a dialogue between two disciplines: what was once a ?marriage of convenience”? could end in respectful separation or amicable divorce. The article concludes with brief summaries of the articles published in the two special issues, indicating their relations to specific aspects of the broader topic at hand.     

The Egyptian “book of the two ways”

Abstract

Science and cartography have had an intimate history which has not been simply the creation of ever more accurate scientific maps but one in which science, cartography and the state have co‐produced the knowledge space that provides the conditions for the possibility of modern science and cartography. The central cartographic process is the assemblage of local knowledges and, as such, is a particular form of the assembly processes fundamental to science. The first attempts by the state to create a space within which to assemble cartographic knowledge were at the Casa da Mina and the Casa de la Contratación, and hence they can be described as the first scientific institutions in Europe. Their failure to create a knowledge space can be attributed to the nature of the portolan charts. The triangulation of France and the linking of the Greenwich and Paris Observatories established the kind of knowledge space that now constitutes the dominant form within which modem science and cartography are produced. However, resistance to the hegemony of modern scientific knowledge space remains possible through finding alternative ways of assembling local knowledge.     

Art and science in the UK: a brief history and critical reflection

ABSTRACT

This paper begins by reviewing the historical construction of ‘SciArt’, and the way in which its supposed interdisciplinarity often shaded into science communication. Early discussions about the complementarity of art and science were conceived in terms of epistemology, notably the qualities of imagination and curiosity. The paper moves on to discuss how, during the current decade, Art and Science (A&S) discourse has altered due to changes in the cultural politics of both its constituent fields, emerging as a ‘transdiscipline’ characterized by ‘creativity’. Eighteen in-depth surveys with leading practitioners in A&S form a substantial part of the research material, yielding an evaluation of what the disciplinary, economic and cultural implications of this changed discourse may be. Though potentially angled towards the solution of ‘wicked’ problems, transdisciplinarity also sacrifices the specific critical expertise of art, fetishizes tech at the expense of science and selectively ignores institutional problems inherent in funding and power structures.     

The Double Legacy of Bernalism in Science Diplomacy

Recent debates in the history of science aimed at reconstructing the history of scientific diplomacy have privileged the analysis of forms of diplomacy coming from above. Instead, the objective of this paper is to raise awareness of these debates by looking at attempts at scientific diplomacy from below. Such a shift in perspective might allow us to observe the impact of marginalized social agents on the construction of international diplomatic choices. This article particularly focuses attention on how the legacy of Bernalism has fostered the emergence of two different types of science diplomacy. On the one hand, Bernalism has influenced the goals of organizations such as UNESCO and the World Peace Council, which are forms of science diplomacy I would term from above. On the other hand, Bernalism has also been at the origin of radical scientific movements that I propose to interpret as forms of scientific diplomacy from below. These have, in fact, played a cardinal role not only in raising public awareness of the social and political roles of science, but also in the more direct participation of scientists in defining the political objectives of their research activity. From this point of view, I analyze how an association like the World Federation of Scientific Workers proposed (at least in the beginning) greater democratic participation than the top-down structures of other forms of scientific internationalism.     

‘Applied science’ in nineteenth-century Britain: public discourse and the creation of meaning, 1817–1876

‘Applied science’ has long been a competitor with the concept of technology for the space between theory and praxis. This paper explores how the concept emerged in mid-nineteenth-century Britain through public sphere discussions in a cycle of rhetoric that linked the press, the development of new educational institutions and the interpretation of industrial change. The recounting and reprinting of heroic narratives of achievement served to cement alliances between ‘practical men’ and ‘men of science’ by proclaiming a respectable subject of common interest to which both could be associated. Narratives of applied science were drawn on in the process of institutional change. A key role was played by editors and business proprietors in local contexts; their interest in applied science stimulated the formation of new universities aimed at providing new forms of technical education. The use of the concept of ‘applied science’ to describe the space between science and practice challenged the traditional notion of ‘rule of thumb’ as a characterisation of shop work. With its connotations relating to both past and future, the term served to structure time as well as science.