194 Les aspects sociau x du progrès scien tifiq u e e t tech niqu e
m ay be considered to be th e u ltim ate causal explanation of science as well as of the rem aining aspects of civilization. (Put briefly, a n d in M arxist language, we n eed to establish th e base a n d th e sup erstru ctu re. B ut th e em pirical evidence w hich is relevant to h isto ry of science leaves open, th us far, w hat is th e character o f th e base 1.
We recognize th e n th re e stages in th e social influencing of scientific ideas. F irst, th e re lis th e social origin of th e problem w hich is attacked, p erh aps a direct stim ulus, perhaps indirect or even rem ote. This first s ta g e includes the question of r e a l i z a t i o n : social 'practice m ay be negative as well as positive. Society m ay isolate and crucially inhibit th e developm ent of science by failu re to p u t scientific a n d technological achievem ents to use.
Second, th e social sources of th e techniques an d concepts w hich are brought to b e a r upon th e problem . Third, the philosophical principle of verification, w hich th e given -stage of cu lture provides to distinguish nonsense from meainingfuiness a n d w h at is found to be false from w h at is found to be tr u e o r m erely probable. A t every stag e of develop m ent, scientists w ork a n d th in k w ithin th e given environm ent. This is personal and biographical but it is also social. O n ly b y personal and social self-criticism can scientists tran scen d th e lim itations of th e ir socio- cen tric predicam ent, a n d indeed such transcending of the historically relative position of know ledge is a p ath tow ard 'greater objectivity.
The th ird stage of social in fluence upon scientific knowledge, th e historical career of th e conceptions of m eaning a n d tru th , deserves care fu l investigation b y historians and sociologists as w ell as by philosophers. Indeed, the sociology of epistemology w ould be a fru itfu l m eeting ground for research by philosophers of science and historians of science. Science has been 'constricted b y epistem ological req uirem en ts ju st as thoroughly as it has been distorted by social determ ination of ideas and im pover ished by social d eterm ination of problem s.
It is a fair hope th a t these questions are also of considerable practical in terest. It m ay be possible to free our ow n tim es of some present bounds upon th o u g h t a n d hum an pow ers b y cultivation of historical a n d psychological research in th e sociology of science.
A. Gella
Being moved by Professor Z vorykine’s opinion on technological de term inism , w hich is now o ften conceded by m any W estern thinkers, usually un der the im pression of present successes of cybernetics, I would
1 See, lor example, the careful summary of the several factors which may be responsible for the scientific revolution of the XVIIth century in Western Europe'in the third volume, section 19k, of Joseph Needham’s Science and C ivili zation in China.
D iscussion 155
like to give some rem arks on th e rela tio n of th e social sciences to th e exact sciences in th e field of th e history o f science.
I w ould like to point o ut a n im p o rtan t difference betw een th e deve lopm ent of exact sciences and so-called social sciences. N atu ral an d exact sciences are v ery m uch m ore independent from th e b u rd en s an d featu res of th e civilization and c u ltu re on w hich soil they grow, th a n social sciences. Conversely, social sciences a re m ore responsive in re la tion to the social a n d political su b stratu m . The progress of exact an d n a tu ra l sciences has an autogeneous character. This difference seems to be very im p o rtan t for th e histo ry of science as a whole. Searching th e developm ent of exact sciences, w e can investigate the sequences of th e ir autogeneous growth, point afte r point, w ithou t regard to its social environm ent.
We can give an in terp reta tio n of th e developm ent of m athem atics o r physics taking into, account only th e ir theories, hypotheses an d errors. Even errors, as in th is field erro rs a re n ev er repeated. I do n o t like to te ll th a t th e stories of social conditions in which exact sciences w ere developed are m eaningless for th e progress of th ese disciplines. I w ould like to- emphasize only, th a t th e m ain problem s of their developm ent are lim ited to the chain of sequences: hypothesis, theory, verification, falsi fication, a n d again, an d so on. We can see 'social conditions of exact sciences only in v ery large frames. We can te ll th a t one civilization creates b e tte r conditions for the developm ent of exact sciences an d an oth er — worse, o r th a t certain ty p es of cultu re encourage the d evel opm ent of sciences in a definite direction.
On th e contrary, th e im pact of social conditions on th e grow th and decline, on th e character a n d direction of social sciences is huge an d perm anent. W hat does it m ean th a t social sciences a re responsive in relation to th e social an d political su b stratum ? Social sciences a re ru led a n d directed b y th e social, economical a n d above all political circum stances of th e ir tim e. “Each age w rites th e history of th e p a st anew
w ith references to th e conditions upperm ost in its ow n tim e” — w rote a fam ous A m erican historian F. J. T urner.
Sim ilar is th e situ a tio n in sociology an d in economics. A ccording to the changes in social stru ctu re , system of production, ideologic a n d political relations of th e country, w e can observe th e Changes in social sciences. The history of social sciences has a ric h collection of exam ples to verify this statem ent. To be fair, -I m ust m ention th a t for th e first tim e I have m et this differentiation betw een “autogeneous” and “responsive” sciences in a n unpublished article of Professor Lew is F eu er from California U niversity in B erkeley. L ater I h ave developed and exem plified th e thesis on th e m aterials of tw o cases. First, in an article w here I have tried to show how th e A m erican sociology is stim u lated a n d lim ited by the pragm atic features of th e A m erican society; second — in a paper
156 L es aspects sociaux du progrès sc ien tifiq u e e t tech niqu e
on the history an d social ro le of th e F rederick J. T u rn e r’s Frontier
Hypothesis, which in terestin g ly flu ctu ated up a n d down during 70 years,
of its life.
One m ore exam ple : in th e last deca des of th e X lX th c en tu ry L. G um - plowicz created his system of sociology. A t the sam e tim e and under his; strong influence w orked L ester F ran k W ard living in th e U.S.A. Both authors w ere u n d er stro n g influence of th e sam e intellectual m ovem ent of the age — evolutionism . D espite o f all, th e y created tw o d eep ly different system s, Gumplowiez’s system was extrem ely pessimistic, W ard’s system w as extrem ely optim istic. B ut Gumplowicz spent his life in th e A ustro-H ungarian m onarchy w h ere m an y hopeless conflicts of ethnical groups dom inated social a n d political life. W ard lived in th e co un try of th e largest perspectives of th e social and economic advance.
D raw ing conclusions from m y exam ples, I w ould like to stress, th a t we cannot investigate th e historical problem s of exact sciences in th e same w ay as those of social sciences. A historian of sciences w orking on the general problem s of the history of sciences, has to rem em ber about these tw o different ch aracters of the developm ent of scientific disciplines: more autogeneous in exact and n atu ral sciences on th e one hand, and more responsive in social sciences on th e other.
En o u tre on t pris la paro le 'mais n ’o n t pas envoyé leu rs contributions:
