科學在行動 附錄

 

Latour, Bruno. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard university press, 1987.
Latour, Bruno(2005)科學在行動：怎樣在社會中跟隨科學家和工程師。劉文旋、鄭開譯。北京：東方出版社。

目錄與標題、小標題	APPENDIX 1 Rules of Method 方法規則	APPENDIX 2 Principles 原則
Introduction Opening Pandora‘s Black Box (1) Looking for a way in (2) When enough is never enough (3) The first rule of method	規則一。我們研究行動中的科學，而非既成科學；我們探索黑箱化之前的事實與機器，或跟隨能開啟黑箱的爭議 Rule I We study science in action and not ready made science or technology; to do so, we either arrive before the facts and machines are blackboxed or we follow the controversies that reopen them. (Introduction) 規則一：我們研究的是行動中的科學，而不是已經形成的科學或技術。為了進行這種研究，一方面，我們在事實和機器被變成黑箱以前抵達它們，另一方面，我們也緊隨把它們重新打開的爭論。(導論)
Part I From Weaker to Stronger Rhetoric第一部份 從弱修辭到強修辭
Chapter 1 Literature Part A: Controversies. (1) Positive and negative modalities (2) The collective fate of fact-making Part B: When controversies flare up(爆發) the literature becomes technical. (1) Bringing friends in (2) Referring to former texts (3) Being referred to by later texts Part C:Writing texts that withstand (經受) the assaults of a hostile environment. (1) Articles fortify themselves (2) Positioning tactics部署戰術 　(a) STACKING堆疊 　(b) STAGING AND FRAMING登場與構框 　(c) CAPTATION構陷 (3) The second rule of method Conclusion: Numbers, more numbers	規則二。決定某宣稱是客觀或者主觀的，或者某個機制是否完善或有效率，我們不從尋求內部屬性來解答，而是完全從之後它們遭遇他人之手而經受的轉變來斷定。 Rule 2 To determine the objectivity or subjectivity of a claim, the efficiency or perfection of a mechanism, we do not look for their intrinsic qualities but at all the transformations they undergo later in the hands of others. (Chapter l) 規則二:為了判定一個斷言的客觀性或主觀性、一個機制的充分性或完滿性，我們尋求的不是它們的內在性質，而完全是它們後來在別人手裡經受的轉變。(第一章)	第一原則。事實或機器的命運掌握在後續使用者的手中；事實或機器的性質因此是集體行動的結果，而非原因。 First principle The fate of facts and machines is in later users' hands; their qualities are thus a consequence, not a cause, of a collective action. (Chapter 1) 第一原理：事實或者機器的命運掌握在後來使用者的手裡，因此，它們的性質是集體行動的一個結果，而不是原因。(第一章)
Chapter 2 Laboratories Part A: From texts to things: A showdown. 攤牌 (1) Inscriptions (2) Spokesmen and women (3) Trials of strength力量試煉 Part B: Building up counter-laboratories. (1) Borrowing more black boxes (2) Making actors betray their representatives (3) Shaping up new allies (4) Laboratories against laboratories Part C: Appealing (to) nature 訴諸(求助於)自然 (1) 'Natur. mit uns' (自然與我們同在) (2) The double-talk of the two-faced Janus	規則三。由於爭議之平息，是大寫自然之再現表徵的成因，而非結果，因此，我們無法以這個結果（即大寫自然），來解釋如何以及為何一個爭議已然平息。 Rule 3 Since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Nature's representation, not its consequence, we can never use this consequence, Nature, to explain how and why a controversy has been settled. (Chapter 2) 規則三：由於一個爭論的解決是自然圖像的原因而不是結果，因此，我們永遠不能用自然這個結果來解釋一個爭論是如何解決和為什麼被解決了的。(第二章)	第二原則。科學家與工程師以他們的新盟友之名說話（這些新盟友由工程師與科學家形塑與徵召）；（作為其他代言者間的代言者，工程師與科學家透過追加未預期的資源，以有利於自身的方式，傾覆原先的力量均衡。 Second principle Scientists and engineers speak in the name of new allies that they have shaped and enrolled; representatives among other representatives, they add these unexpected resources to tip the balance of force in their favour. (Chapter 2) 第二原理:科學家和工程師以他們已經塑造和吸收了的新盟友的名義說話。作為其他代表者之中的代表，他們為了自身的利益增加這些不期而至的資源，以便打破力量的平衡。(第二章)

 

Part II FROM WEAK POINTS TO STRONGHOLDS 從弱點到要塞
Chapter 3 Machines Introduction: The quandary (困惑) of the fact-builder. Part A: Translating interests. (1) Translation one: I want what you want (2) Translation two: I want it, why don't you? (3) Translation three: if you just make a short detour ... (4) Translation four: reshuffling(重排) interests and goals. (A) TACTIC ONE: DISPLACING GOALS (B) TACTIC TWO: INVENTING NEW GOALS (C) TACTIC THREE: INVENTING NEW GROUPS (D) TACTIC FOUR: RENDERING THE DETOUR INVISIBLE (E) TACTIC FIVE: WINNING TRIALS OF ATTRIBUTION (5) Translation five: becoming indispensable Part B: Keeping the interested groups in line. (1) A chain is only as strong as its weakest link (2) Tying up with new unexpected allies (3) Machinations (權謀) of forces Part C: The model of diffusion versus the model of translation (1) Vis inertia ...(慣性力) (2) Weaker and stronger associations (3) The fourth rule of method	規則四。由於爭議之平息，是大寫社會之穩定的成因，而非結果，因此，我們無法以這個結果（即大寫自然），來解釋如何以及為何一個爭議已然平息。 我們應該對稱地考慮人類與非人類資源在其中的作功。 Rule 4 Since the settlement of a controversy is the cause of Society's stability, we cannot use Society to explain how and why a controversy has been settled. We should .consider symmetrically the efforts to enrol human and non-human resources. (Chapter 3) 規則四：因為一個爭論的解決是社會得以穩固的原因，因此，我們不能用社會來解釋一個爭論是如何解決和為什麼被解 決了的。我們應當對吸收人類資源和非人類資源的努力加以對 稱的考慮。(第三章)	第三原則。我們不曾遭遇科學、技術與社會，我們遭遇的是完完全全的更弱的或更強的聯結；因此，理解事實或機器是什麼(what)，與理解人們是誰(who)，是同樣的工作。 Third principle We are never confronted with science, technology and society, but with a gamut of weaker and stronger associations; thus understanding what facts and machines are is the same task as understanding who the people are. (Chapter 3) 第三原理：我們面對的從來不是科學、技術和社會，而是或強或弱的聯合的整個範圍。因此，理解事實和機器是什麼與理解人們是誰是同樣的工作。(第三章)
Chapter 4 Insiders Out Part A: Interesting others in the laboratories. (1) When everyone can do without scientists or engineers (A) WHEN BEING A SCIENTIST IS NOT YET A JOB (B) A NON-OBLIGATORY PASSAGE POINT (2) Making the laboratories indispensable (3) What is technoscience made of? {A) 'WHO IS REALLY DOING SCIENCE, AFTER ALL?' (B) EVERYBODY IS MADE TO GIVE A HAND Part B: Counting allies and resources (1) Counting on Scientists and Engineers (2) Not counting only on scientists and engineers (3) The fifth rule of method	規則五。我們必須如同我們所跟隨的（構成技術科學的）不同行動者那般（看見人事物的）未決定（狀態）；每次只要打造好了一個內外之分，我們就應該同時研究兩邊，並列出清單（不論這個清單多長或多異質），指出是誰創造了這個區分。 Rule 5 We have to be as undecided as the various actors we follow as to what technoscience is made of; every time an inside/ outside divide is built, we should study the two sides simultaneously and make the list, no matter how long and heterogeneous, of those who do the work. (Chapter 4)　［內容另據英文本175倒數第四行以降補充］ ［我們不問何為社會，何為科學，而是追問諸種連結如何連結或分離］p176 規則五：至於技術科學是由什麼構成的，對此，我們必須像我們所跟隨的各種不同的參與者一樣懸而未決(undecided )。每當一種內行/外行的區分被製造出來時，我們就應當同時對兩者進行研究，並制定出那些參與工作者的清單，不論這份清單會多長，也不論構成這份清單的成分會多麼地多種多樣。(第四)	第四原則。科學與技術有深奧的內容越多，則向外延伸越遠；因此，「科學與技術」只是技術科學的子集合。 Fourth principle The more science and technology have an esoteric content the further they extend outside; thus, 'science and technology' is only a subset of technoscience. (Chapter 4) 第四原理：科學和技術越是具有生僻的內容，它們就越是擴展到內行以外。因此，「科學和技術」僅僅是技術科學的一個子集。(第四章)

 

PART III FROM SHORT TO LONGER NETWORKS從短網絡到長網絡
Chapter 5 Tribunals of Reason Part A: The trials of rationality. (1) Peopling the world with irrational minds (2) Reversing the outcome of trials in irrationality (3) Straightening up distorted beliefs Part B: Sociologies. (1) Running against other people's claims (2) What is tied to what? (3) Mapping the associations Part C: Who needs hard facts? (1) Why not soft facts instead? (2) Hardening the facts (3) The sixth rule of method: just a question of scale…	規則六。遭逢被指控為不合理性的情況，我們既不注重何種邏輯規則已被打破，也不注重何種社會結構能否解釋此扭曲，我們只關注觀察者的位移方向與位移角度，以及這個網絡因而能夠被建造的長度。 Rule 6 Confronted with the accusation of irrationality, we look neither at what rule of logic has been broken, nor at what structure of society could explain the distortion, but to the angle and direction of the observer's displacement, and to the length of the network thus being built. (Chapter 5) 規則六：面對不合理性這種指責，我們既不考慮何種邏輯規則被打破了，也不考慮何種社會結構能解釋變形，而只考慮觀察者的置換( displacement) 角度和方向，以及由此而被建立起來的網路的長度。(第五章)	第五原則。不合理性永遠是個創造出來的指控，這個控訴是網絡建構者為了要排除攔路者創造的；因此，心智之間不存在大分裂；存在的僅僅是更長或更短的網絡；更堅實的事實並非規則而是例外，因為這些更堅實的事實，僅在像這樣的例子底下是需要的：以這些事實大規模取代其他事實，讓這些事實不再能以既有方式行事。 Fifth principle Irrationality is always an accusation made by someone building a network over someone else who stands in the way; thus, there is no Great Divide between minds, but only shorter and longer networks; harder facts are not the rule but the exception, since they are needed only in a very few cases to displace others on a large scale out of their usual ways. (Chapter 5) 第五原理：不合理性這種指責通常由這樣的人提出，此人建立一種網路系統是為了越過另一個擋住其去路的人。因此，並不存在頭腦之間的分水嶺，只存在或長或短的網路。更硬的事 實不是規律而是例外，因為，僅僅在把別人從其通常道路中大規模地轉移出來這種極少見的情況下才需要它們。(第五章)
Chapter 6 Centres of calculation Prologue: The domestication of the savage mind. Part A: Action at a distance. (1) Cycles of accumulation (2) The mobilization of the worlds (3) Constructing space and time Part B: Centres of calculation. (1) Tying all the allies firmly together (A) SOLVING A FEW LOGISTICAL PROBLEMS 　(B) CALCULATING, AT LAST ... (2) What's the matter of (with) formalism? 　(A) DOING AWAY WITH 'ABSTRACT THEORIES' 　(B) WHY FORMS MATTER SO MUCH: THE SEVENTH RULE OF METHOD Part C: Metrologies (各種計量學) (1) Extending the networks still further (2) Tied in by a few metrological chains (3) About a few other paper-shufflers	規則七。在歸因於於任何人類心智或人類的方法的任何特殊性質之前，我們首先檢視銘寫的各種方法，如收集到的、結合成的、綁縛成群的以及被拒絕的種種方法。要是網絡已研究透徹，但某事物仍未被解釋時，我們才應該開始論及認知因素。 Rule 7 Before attributing any special quality to the mind or to the method of people, let us examine first the many ways through which inscriptions are gathered, combined, tied together and sent back. Only if there.is something unexplained once the networks have been studied shall we start to speak of cognitive factors. (Chapter 6) 規則七：在把任何特殊的性質歸於人的頭腦或方法以前，讓我們先檢查一下記錄被聚集、聯結、結合在一起或者被拒絕的大量方式。只有當研究了網路系統之後還存在某些未被解釋的事物時，我們才開始談及認知因素。(第六章)	第六原則。技術科學的歷史，是延著網絡散落了的資源的歷史的很大一部分。 Sixth principle History of technoscience is in a large part the history of the resources scattered along networks to accelerate the mobility, faithfulness, combination and cohesion of traces that make action at a distance possible. (Chapter 6) 第六原理：技術科學的歷史佔據著資源史的很大一部分，這些資源被沿著網路散開，從而促進對使遠距離行動成為可能的 蹤跡進行調集、信任、聯結和凝聚。(第六章)

 

社會學導引_人文取向的透視 (黃樹仁/劉雅靈譯本)

社會學家是一個強烈的、無休止的、厚臉皮的興趣於人類作為的人。他的天生棲息之處是世界上所有人類聚居之地，不論人們是聚居於何處。...

We would say then that the sociologist (that is, the one we would really like to invite to our game) is a person intensively, endlessly, shamelessly interested in the doings of men. His natural habitat is all the human gathering places of the world, wherever men come together. The sociologist may be interested in many other things. But his consuming interest remains in the world of men, their institutions, their history, their passions. And since he is interested in men, nothing that men do can be altogether tedious for him. He will naturally be interested in the events that engage men’s ultimate beliefs, their moments of tragedy and grandeur and ecstasy. But he will also be fascinated by the commonplace, the everyday. He will know reverence, but this reverence will not prevent him from wanting to see and to understand. He may sometimes feel revulsion or contempt. But this also will not deter him from wanting to have his questions answered. The sociologist, in his quest for understanding, moves through the world of men without respect for the usual lines of demarcation. Nobility and degradation, power and obscurity, intelligence and folly—these are equally interesting to him, however unequal they may be in his personal values or tastes. Thus his questions may lead him to all possible levels of society, the best and the least known places, the most respected and the most despised. And, if he is a good sociologist, he will find himself in all these places because his own questions have so taken possession of him that he has little choice but to seek for answers. (1963:18)