互动专长的探究与批评  

Exploration and Criticism of Interactional Expertise

作　　者：陈强强 CHEN Qiangqiang(School of Marxism,Xizang Minzu University,Xianyang,Shaanxi,712082)

机构地区：[1]西藏民族大学马克思主义学院,陕西咸阳712082

出　　处：《自然辩证法通讯》2021年第10期40-47,共8页Journal of Dialectics of Nature

基　　金：陕西省教育厅2020年度专项“基于专长规范理论的公众与专家间信任关系重建研究”(项目编号:20JK0412)。

摘　　要：科林斯提出互动专长概念及与之密切相关的"强互动假说"和"最小具身论点"。为了论证和验证互动专长,科林斯不仅援引思想实验和现实案例,而且围绕"色盲""完美音高"及"引力波"开展了系列"模仿游戏"实验。实验结果表明互动专长存在,由此对"强互动假说"和"最小具身论点"形成支持。然而,塞林格与米克斯对科林斯围绕互动专长的上述观点持批评意见,质疑他援引的案例及其体现的事实根据,认为"最小涉身论点"站不住脚。有必要结合现有的批评意见从更为多元的研究思路与方法加强对互动专长的探究,进一步阐发互动专长在思考科学研究的认识论合法性、公众理解(参与)科学、多学科和跨学科交流及语言社会化等方面的积极作用。Harry Collins proposed the concept of interactional expertise and its closely related“strong interactional hypothesis”and“minimal embodiment thesis”.To demonstrate interactional expertise,Harry Collins not only referred to thought experiment and real cases,but also conducted a series of“imitation game”around“color blindness”,“perfect pitch”and“gravitational waves”.The experimental results show the existence of interactional expertise,which supports the“strong interactional hypothesis”and“minimal embodiment thesis”.However,Evan Selinger and John Mix criticized Harry Collins’argument surrounding interactional expertise,questioned the cases he referred to and the factual basis for them,and argued that the“minimal embodiment thesis”was untenable.It is necessary to combine the existing criticism to strengthen the exploration of interactional expertise from more diverse research ideas and methods,and continue to explore the positive role of interactional expertise in thinking about the epistemological legitimacy of science studies,public understanding(engagement with)science,multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary communication,and linguistic socialization.

关 键 词：互动专长 模仿游戏 强互动假说 最小具身论点 

分 类 号：N0[自然科学总论—科学技术哲学]