篇名 | 知識、科學與不確定性─ 專家與科技系統的「無知」如何建構風險 |
---|---|
卷期 | 13 |
並列篇名 | Knowledge, Science and uncertainty How can the unawareness of experts and the technological system constructs risk? |
作者 | 周桂田 |
頁次 | 131-180 |
關鍵字 | 風險 、 專家系統 、 科技系統 、 知識系統 、 不確定性 、 不安全性 、 啟蒙運動 、 進步意識型態 、 risk 、 expert system 、 technological system 、 knowledge system 、 uncertainty 、 unsafety 、 enlightenment 、 ideology of progress rationality 、 THCI 、 TSSCI |
出刊日期 | 200506 |
現代抽象系統(科技系統、專家系統及知識系統)所建構的工業 文明社會遭逢相當大的挑戰,其內在所衍生諸多的文明風險,如全球 生態災難、偷理爭議、健康風險與社會不平等問題,反匱的衝擊與腐 蝕其自我正當性的基礎,更撼動了人們對現代的信任關係。
本文將從知識、科技與專家所構成的現代抽象系統出發,批判性 的討論其賴以為基礎的知識或科學所構成的支配性問題,並延伸指出 科學不確定性所衍生的科技風險問題。同時,將從不同的無知行動者 (unaware agents)產生風險盲目的影響,分析其一方面衝擊到科學與 科技系統運作的正當性,另一方面導致社會公眾對科學的爭議與不信 任。最後,提出應發展新的知識與行動典範,建構科技與社會溝通的 平台與機制,以為日益擴大之知識鴻溝與社會偷理爭議提供共同思考 的民主基礎。
The civil-industrialized society constructed by modern abstract systems (technological, expert and knowledge systems) is encountering great challenge. The civil risks, such as global ecological disasters, disputes on ethics, health risks and issues of social inequality, derived from the society, reversely lash and corrupt the self-legitimacy of the society and shake the relations of reliance of modern people.
This article proceeds from the abstract systems formed by knowledge, technology and experts, then, it critically discusses the knowledge and technological controlled problems which they are based on and continuously points out the technological risk problems derived from scientific uncertainty. Meanwhile, from the aspect of the influences of the risk blindness of various unaware actors, this article analyses the lashes of the legitimacy of scientific and technological system operations and the distrust and disputes on science of the public. Eventually, it initially proposes the development of new knowledge and operative guidelines, and the establishment of the platform and mechanism of the communication between technology and the society to provide the democratic foundation of corporate-thinking for the environment of increasingly widen knowledge gap and the disputes on social ethics.