Meta-Problem: Bilim ve Teknoloji Çalışmaları İçerisinde Bilim Tarihi Disiplininin Teorik ve Kurumsal Yeri

Abstract

Bilim tarihi disiplini, ilk doktora derecesinden bu yana geçen yetmiş sekiz yılda bilime ve bilimsel ilerlemeye dair belli başlı soruları odağına taşımış olsa da özellikle 20. yüzyılın ikinci yarısından itibaren disiplinin bilimle birlikte kendisini de nesne olarak tanımlama ve konumlandırma gerekliliği ile yüzleşmektedir. Bu çalışma Batı’da ve Türkiye’de akademik olarak kurumsallaşmış bilim tarihi disiplininin meta-düzeydeki refleksif problemlerini tespit etmeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu bağlamda üç boyutlu bir problem ağı ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Her üç boyutu da ortaklaştıran somut durum çeşitlenmedir. Bilim tarihi disiplini kuruluşunda ön görülen netliği git gide kaybetmekte, ‘bilim tarihi’ adı bilimin geçmişini konu edinen bir dizi araştırma programının taşıdığı akraba benzerliğinin adı durumuna gelmektedir. Bunun nedenlerine dair gerek meta-teorik tartışmaların yürütülebileceği bir hat açmak gerekse de bu hat üzerinde empirik alan araştırmalarına teorik zemin hazırlayabilmek için problem tespiti üç boyutlu olarak yapılandırılmıştır: (1) Bilim Tarihi – Akademik Felsefe ilişkisi, (2) Bilim Tarihi – Epistemoloji İlişkisi ve (3) Bilim Tarihi – Bilim Teorisi (Felsefesi) İlişkisi. Sonuçta bu hat üzerinden yapılandırılan merkezi soru şudur: Bilim tarihi, gerek genel bilim eğitimi ve akademi mecrasında gerekse de BTÇ / STS içerisinde ‘bilim’e ilişkin diğer araştırma programlarının veya disiplinlerinin sağlayamayacağı, fakat onlarla entegre olabilecek nasıl bir içerik veya kavrayış üretebilir?

Keywords

• Bilim Tarihi,Bilim Felsefesi,Epistemoloji,Bilim ve Teknoloji Çalışmaları

Meta-Problem: Theoretical and Institutional Place of the History of Science Discipline in Science and Technology Studies

Abstract

Although the history of science discipline has brought the main questions about science and scientific progress to its focus in the seventy-eight years since the first doctorate degree, it faces the necessity of defining and positioning itself as an object in the second half of the 20th century. In this study, reflexive meta-level problems in the history of science as an academic discipline institutionalized in the West and Turkey aimed to identify. In this context, a three-dimensional problem network has been revealed. The concrete situation that unites all three dimensions is diversification. The history of science discipline gradually loses the clarity foreseen in its establishment, and the name 'history of science' becomes the name of the family resemblance of a series of research programs that deal with the past of science. The establishment of the problem is structured in three dimensions in order to open a guideline where meta-theoretical discussions can be conducted and also to prepare a theoretical ground for empirical field research on this line: (1) History of Science - Academic Philosophy relationship, (2) History of Science - Epistemology relationship and (3) History of Science - Science Theory (Philosophy of Science) relationship. Consequently, the central question that is structured on this line is the following: What kind of content or insight can the history of science produce in general science education and academia, and within the HPS / STS that other research programs or disciplines related to 'science' cannot provide?

Keywords

• History of Science,Philosophy of Science,Epistemology,Science and Technology Studies

References

1. Aristotle (1995). Poetics. The complete works of Aristotle, Volume 2, Sixth Printing, ed. Jonathan Barnes. (pp. 2316-2340). USA: Princeton University.
2. Armitage, A. (1959). Review, The Copernican revolution: planetary astronomy in the development of Western thought by Thomas Kuhn, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 10, No: 39, 254-255. The Oxford University Press.
3. Aulie, R. P. (1971). Review, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, The Science Teacher, Vol. 38, No. 1, 59. National Science Teachers Association.
4. Bourdieu, P. (2013). Bilimin toplumsal kullanımları -bilimsel alanın klinik bir sosyolojisi için-. L. Ünsaldı (çev.). Ankara: Heretik.
5. Brasch, F. E. (1957). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of New Thought by Thomas Kuhn, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 69. No. 410, 482-483. Astronomical Society of the Pacific.
6. Brush, S. G. (1974). Should the history of science be rated x?, Science, New Series, Vol. 183, No. 4130, 1164-1172. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
7. Butterfield, H. (1958). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn, The American Historical Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, 656-657. Oxford University Press.
8. Comte, A. (2015). Pozitif felsefe dersleri ve pozitif anlayış üzerine konuşma. E. Ataçay (çev.). Ankara: BilgeSu.

9. Engelmann, H. O. (1957). A highly significant book: The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 28, No: 9, 514. Taylor & Francis Ltd.
10. Haden, J. (1959). Copernicus: and the history of science, The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 13, No. 1, 79-108. Philosophy of Education Society Inc.
11. Hall, M. B. (1963). Review, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, The American Historical Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, 700-701. Oxford University Press.
12. History of Science Society (2019). Graduate programs in history of science. Erişim: 01.05.2019, https://hssonline.org/resources/graduate-programs-in-history-of-science/
13. Hollinger, D. A. (1973). T.S. Kuhn’s theory of science and its implications for history, The American Historical Review, Vol. 78, No. 2, 370-393. Oxford University Press.
14. Jasanoff, S. (2000). Reconstructing the past, constructing the present: can science studies and the history of science live happily ever after?. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No 4, 621-631, Sage Publications Ltd.
15. Iggers, G. G. (2011). Bilimsel nesnellikten postmodernizme yirminci yüzyılda tarihyazımı. 4. Basım, G. Çağalı Güven (çev.). İstanbul: Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.
16. Kant, I. (2015). Arı usun eleştirisi. A. Yardımlı (çev.). 4. Baskı. İstanbul: İdea.
17. Kuhn, T. (1980). The halt and the blind: philosophy and history of science, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2, 181-192. Oxford University.
18. Kuhn, T. (2014). Bilimsel devrimlerin yapısı. 9. Baskı. N. Kuyaş (çev.). İstanbul: Kırmızı.
19. Kuhn, T. (2017). Keşif mantığı mı araştırma psikolojisi mi?, Eleştiri ve Bilginin Gelişmesi (Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave ed.), Nur Küçük (çev.), 5-36. İstanbul: İthaki.
20. Kuhn, T. (2019). Yapı’dan sonraki yol -felsefi makaleler (1970-1993)-. E. Bozkurt (çev.). İstanbul: İletişim.
21. Koyre, A. (1998). Kapalı dünyadan açık evrene. A.Yardımlı (çev.). İstanbul: İdea.
22. Maienschein, J. & Smith, G. (2008), What difference does history of science make, anyway?, Isis, Vol. 99, No. 2, 318-321, The University of Chicago.
23. Newman, J. R. (1957). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn; From The Closed World to the Infinite Universe by Alexandre Koyré; Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo by Stillman Drake, Scientific American, Vol. 197, No. 4, 155-162. Scientific American, a division of Nature America Inc.
24. Önlisans ve Lisans Diploma Programlarının Yeniden İsimlendirilmesi ve Sınıflandırılması (2020), https://www.yok.gov.tr/DuyuruBelgeleri/Genel/2019/Lisans_programlari.xlsx (Erişim Tarihi: 16.03.2020).
25. Price, D. J. de Solla (1963). Review, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, American Scientist, Vol. 51, No. 3, 294A. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Honor Society.
26. Purtill, R. L. (1967). Kuhn on scientific revolutions, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 34, No.1, 53-58. The University of Chicago.
27. Sahlins, M. D. (1964). Review, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, Scientific American, Vol. 210, No. 5, 142-144. Scientific American, a division of Nature America Inc.
28. Sarton, G. (1924). The new humanism. Isis, Vol. 6, No. 1, 9- 42, The University of Chicago.
29. Sarton, G. (1948). The life of science -essays in the history of civilization. New York: Hanry Schuman.
30. Sarton, G. (1962). History of science. On The History of Science (Dorothy Stimson ed.), 1-14, Cambridge: Harvard University.
31. Sayvetz, A. (1957). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn and James Bryant Conant, The Journal of General Education, Vol. 10, No.4, 244-246. Penn State University.
32. Shamos, M. H. (1963). Review, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, The Science Teacher, Vol. 30, No. 4, 59. National Science Teachers Association.
33. Shapere, D. (1971). Review: The paradigm concept -reviwed work(s): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn; Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Proceedings of the International Colloquium on the Philosophy of Science by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave”, Science, New Series, Vol. 172, No. 3984, 706-709. American Association fort he Advancement of Science.
34. Shields, C. V. (1972). Review, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 74, No. 4, 827-829. Wiley.
35. Stopes-Roe, H. V. (1964). Review, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 15, No. 58, 158-161. Oxford University.
36. Swenson, H. N. (1957). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn, The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 85, No: 5, 276-277. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
37. Ünsaldı, L. (2013). Takdim, Bilimin toplumsal kullanımları -bilimsel alanın klinik bir sosyolojisi için- (Pierre Bourdieu) içinde, 11-52. Ankara: Heretik.
38. Wallerstein, I. (2013). Bilginin belirsizlikleri. Berivan Alataş (çev.). İstanbul: Sümer.
39. Weingart, S. B. (2015). Finding the history and philosophy of science, Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 80, No. 1, 201-213. Springer.
40. Wiener, P. P. (1958). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn, Philosophy of Science, Vol. 25, No. 4, 297-299. The University of Chicago.
41. Woolf, H. (1958). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn, Isis, Vol. 49, No. 3, 366-367. The University of Chicago.
42. Wray, K. B. (2010). What are the key journals in the field?”, Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 72, No. 3, 423-430. Springer.
43. YÖK Tez Merkezi (2020), https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/ (Erişim Tarihi: 16.03.2020).
44. Yükseköğretim Bilgi Yönetim Sistemi (2020), https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 16.03.2020).
45. Zimansky, C. A. (1959). Review, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought by Thomas Kuhn, Speculum, Vol. 34, No. 4, 664-665. The University of Chicago.