Chapter 27 Chapter 25 The Scientist's Viewpoint

The 19th century was an era of revolutions, whether successful or not, in every field of politics, society, science, industry, culture and art.For the first time in history, people understood that change can be dramatic and revolutionary, not just incremental. The 20th century was an era of revolutions in another sense, because revolutions occurred more frequently and their effects were more profound.They shake not only human beings and their societies and social institutions, but also nature itself.It is difficult to find a place where people can escape the great changes brought about by the revolution.The revolution has penetrated into every field: communications (radio, television), manufacturing (synthetic fibers and plastics), electronics (solid-state sensors, printed circuits, integrated circuits), warfare (nuclear weapons, missiles), painting (Picasso, Mattis, Miro), music (Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Stockhausen), literature (Joyce, F. Wolf), navigation (radar, long-distance positioning), various scientific disciplines ( Einstein, Bohr, Crick, and Watson), medicine (the Salk vaccine, psychoanalysis, pacemakers, and cardiac surgery), and data and information processing—thus we have seen the beginnings of the computer revolution. pace.We have also seen with our own eyes the never-ending continuation of social and political revolutions: the Russian and Chinese revolutions affected more people, and to a greater degree, than any previous revolution; News of small uprisings and riots is increasing, ranging from military coups to outright social and political revolutions.

The 19th century was born from the aftermath of the turmoil of 1789, followed by the political revolution of 1848 and the revolutionary movements led by Marxists.In science, we've seen Darwin's theory of evolution proclaimed, which heralds a revolution to come.Even so, the mainstream of intellectual development in the second half of the nineteenth century (and the beginning of the twentieth century) was evolutionary rather than revolutionary.Benjamin Cade's The Evolution of Society (1894) and L.Works such as Hallevik's The Evolution of Science (1908) exemplify the evolutionary view.In general, the political and social revolutions of the nineteenth century were unsuccessful, ending with the failure of the Russian Revolution of 1905 (1905 usually marks the beginning of twentieth-century science). The political and social changes of the nineteenth century, for all their drama and sometimes violent conflict, were generally regarded as largely gradual, and the scientific developments of the period are generally discussed in terms of also hold this view.

On the contrary, the 20th century was shaken by astonishing upheavals, and the continuity of history was truly interrupted.The revolutions in Russia and China had a huge impact on society, politics, and economy, and aroused international revolutionary movements around the world, and their impact far exceeded that of the French Revolution.There were also great revolutions in science at the beginning of this century, mainly reflected in physics: X-rays, quantum theory, radioactivity, relativity, electrons, nuclei. In 1905, the year the Russian Revolution aborted, Einstein published his landmark paper on relativity and another paper that revolutionized the physics of matter and radiation and established quantum theory (which Created by M. Planck in 1900).Relativity and quantum ideas have dominated physics thought ever since.In art, before 1914, there was Stravinsky's uncharacteristically rhythmic Rite of Spring and the jaw-dropping paintings of Picasso and Braque, which ushered in Structuralism, Modernism and abstract art as well as Pioneer of dissonant and polyphonic music.

It should come as no surprise that the twentieth century has seen a wealth of theories and ideas about revolution.Because of the dramatic changes that took place in politics, society, art, and science in the first decades of this century, revolution (rather than evolution) has become the dominant idea describing scientific development in our time.But the notion that revolution is a desired or necessary feature of scientific progress was less acceptable to most people in the first half of this century than it is now.Many scholars, including historians and scientists themselves, worry about revolutionary changes in science, especially fundamental physics, just as they worry about violent shake-ups in political and social structures across the globe.Some people, such as Einstein, advocate abandoning the concept of scientific revolution (see Chapter 28); others, such as R. A．Millikan, not only rejected the idea of ​​a scientific revolution, but also denied any revolutionary advances in science.

In this chapter we will list some of the ideas about the scientific revolution that have emerged in this century, with particular emphasis on what scientists have said.In the next chapter, we examine the processes that helped historians of science come to accept the idea of ​​a scientific revolution in the first century, especially when T. S．After the publication of Kuhn's hugely influential book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" in 1962, the number of people who accepted the concept of scientific revolution reached its peak.Chapter 27 will discuss the revolution of relativity theory and quantum theory.In most people's minds, the theory of relativity is seen as the poster child for the scientific revolution of our time.And for those who know, quantum theory is one of the greatest revolutions in history.In Chapter 4, revolutions in Earth sciences of special importance will be discussed.Because experts and scholars in this field have recognized that it is a revolution, have written its history with the language and structure of revolution, and even used Kuhn’s theoretical analysis method of revolution to gain insight into the structure of earth science revolution.Moreover, this revolution shows in clear and compelling form some of the main features of all great scientific revolutions.

Political and Scientific Radicalism Before World War II In 1908, the political revolutionist V. I．A philosophical work by Lenin has been published, chiefly dealing with the nature and effects of the revolution which is taking place in physics, entitled Materialism and Empirio-Criticism.The public intention of this work is mainly to defend "Marxist philosophy" and to counter those attacks on "dialectical materialism" at that time.But for the purposes of this book, some of Lenin's arguments (embodied in the chapter entitled: "Recent Revolutions in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism") are particularly noteworthy.It can be used as an example of how the idea of ​​a revolution in physics was widespread very early on.

Lenin concentrated on the problem of the element radium.This issue featured prominently in much of the literature during this period.To the astonishment of Lenin and his contemporaries, when a small piece of radium became hotter than its surroundings, this situation apparently persisted.According to classical mechanics theory and the law of conservation of energy, a hot body will radiate heat to a lower temperature environment until it reaches thermal equilibrium, that is, until the temperature of the object and the surrounding environment are equal.Thus, the properties of radium not only revealed to scientists a new phenomenon—radioactivity—that had to be incorporated into the conceptual framework of science, but this new substance destroyed the foundations of classical science in several ways.Perhaps most notably: In radioactivity, atoms of an element spontaneously decay and "transmutate" into atoms of another completely different element.

Among the many scholars Lenin cited as an example was the French mathematician and philosopher Henri Poincaré.From Poincare's philosophical work "The Value of Science" written in 1907, Lenin saw his discussion of the "serious crisis" of physics.According to Poincaré, there was a serious crisis in physics, the culprit of which was "the great revolutionary—radium."Poincaré's views were widely respected because he was one of the most eminent scientists in France, and perhaps in the world.His somber declaration of crisis draws attention: the new discovery not only overthrows the principle of the conservation of energy, but also jeopardizes the "Lavoisier principle or the principle of the conservation of matter"; endangers the foundations of mechanics, including Newton's principle of equality of action and reaction ; jeopardizes other accepted fundamentals of physics.

The destructive power of revolution was seen in radium and radioactivity.Many other new discoveries often share this feature. The Pedagogy of Henry Adams (1907) deals with the subject of revolutionary destructive power in its most dramatic form.Referring to Adams' reflections on the Great Exposition of 1900, Adams used the "engine and the Madonna" metaphor to express his amazement at the difference between the old steam power and the new electric power.He found "a break in continuity" (p. 381) which "sets an unfathomable chasm in the historian's object of study"; There are more connections between them. Forces are interchangeable, if not reversible, whereas electricity, as in the world of faith, obeys only absolute orders".Puzzled, Adams turned to Langley, an astrophysicist and president of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, for help.

Langley can't help him, in fact he seems to be bothered by the same problem, he keeps repeating that the new force is lawless, he especially repeatedly claims that he is not responsible for the discovery of the new rays, which are like patricide Enemy, they attack science aggressively.His own rays are harmless, and he uses them to obtain a double-broad solar spectrum.But Ra denied his God and, for Langley, his scientific truth.This force is new. It was not only Lenin, Adams, Poincare, and Langley who saw a revolution in the development of physics between 1890 and 1905.Not everyone is bothered by these newfound implications, though.For example, Poincaré, in his essay "On Time and Space" (1963, 23), regards the theory of relativity as the main result of a "revolution" in the "recent advances in physics"; in another essay, he The implication is that quantum theory is potentially "the most profound revolution that natural philosophy has undergone since Newton".

In the 1920s, the word "revolution" acquired a new radical meaning from the Russian Revolution of 1917 - the Second or Bolshevik Revolution, which brought the new term "Bolshevism" into common speech .This revolution not only completely overthrew the rule of the old tsar, but also caused dramatic changes in Russia's property system and people's economic life.These revolutionary changes were reinforced by the fact that, as Brinton observed (1952), in the Russian Revolution "events were concentrated in a shorter period of time" than in other revolutions of the modern era. In the minds of many Americans and Europeans, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution are the two typical revolutions, but the latter may have a wider significance, because it gave birth to the specter of Bolshevism that could be exported, and promoted an international revolution. Revolutionary and subversive movements.Furthermore, the French Revolution did not produce a stable revolutionary republic, and in less than 15 years France was restored to imperial rule, while the Soviet regime, which lasted more than half a century, is stronger today than it was in its early days.Thus, some scientists witnessed the collapse of the old order in Russia and felt a threat to the existing way of life in their own country.It is not surprising, then, that they are equally uneasy about the situation facing science.Quantum physics and the new concept of the atom compounded the crisis brought on by X-rays, radioactivity, and relativity, leading some scientists to find common ground between New Science and the Bolsheviks, a fear of Bolshevism, and even a possible Bolshevik Cautions about the infection of doctrines appear in discussions of science and scientific revolutions in the 1920s. The psychological revolution that took place in the 1920s led some to combine revolutionary science with political activism to a greater extent. J． B．Watson's book Behaviorism (1924) was lauded in American newspapers as "perhaps . Tangal 1928, 102).In Britain, it is noteworthy that Watson's system preached to "revolutionize ethics, religion, and psychoanalysis—indeed, all spiritual and moral sciences." Don Garr, adding that Watson's book "proclaims not just revolutionization, but the abolition of all such solemnity". MacDonald has a point.The conclusion of Watson's "Behaviorism" is such a declaration: Behavioral psychology will replace the existing principles and practices of psychology.In the final section of the last chapter, Watson triumphantly subtitles it "Behaviourism—The Foundation of All Future Experimental Ethics" (1924, 247).This meaning is even more pronounced in the opening two sentences of the stanza, where Watson envisions his behaviorism as "a science which enables all men, men and women, to understand their own behaviour".And will help "men and women . . . readjust their own lives" and "enable them to bring up their children in healthy ways" (p.He proposed a new concept of cosmic utopia: if we raise children "with the freedom of behavior" according to the principle of behaviorism, they will in turn raise their children in a more scientific way, "ultimately the world will become a world suitable for human beings." places where humans live". Watson, unlike Skinner, was an early-century behavioral psychologist who had published a novel called Walden Second in which he ridiculed those who "go where God forsaken, The man who establishes a territory, where he lives naked in a primitive commune, and feeds on the roots of plants, his utopia will be the whole world, he said, and his plan "if it can be carried out, then the world will gradually gain Change".Watson, however, perhaps wishing to avoid some possible criticism (remember this was 1924), emphasized, "I am not seeking a revolution".In the preface to the 1930 edition of his book, Watson admitted that "we have been accused of being ... Bolsheviks". "Criticizing the article makes personal attacks, even swearing." He believes that those who oppose him are out of hatred for his basic concept. His concept is: "Man is an animal, and the only difference between him and other animals is that The type of his behavior".He said he encountered the same resistance as Darwin because "man does not like to compare himself with animals".He claimed that shy souls would be expelled from "behaviourism" because a psychologist who "remains scientifically minded" would describe human behavior in exactly the same way as he would describe "the behavior of a slaughtered bull" terms of" Behaviorism contained a revolutionary element.Peter Medawar and Jane Medawar wrote about this in 1983, arguing that Watson "and those he persuaded brought about a true Baconian revolution in psychology" because they used "The experiential replaces that which, because it is not present to our senses immediately, must be understood by reason."The two Medawars consider habitual "mental states such as joy, pain, malice, and even (where do we draw the line on this?) consciousness itself."They saw behaviorism "replacing the idiosyncratic assumptions of reflective psychology with the narrative and reportage of experience" and thus identified the revolution and the extent of its impact. Another example of the tendency in the first half of this century to associate scientific development with political activism concerns Einstein's theory of relativity.For many who criticize and oppose the theory of relativity in science, the theory of relativity is simply the reflection in science of the Bolshevism spreading in Russia.Bolshevism, which had emerged in Germany and Hungary, seemed to be jeopardizing all the accepted values ​​of Western civilization and society.The no-nonsense New York Times (1919.11. 16, 8) published an article entitled "Jazz in Science," which began with four questions: "When is space curved? Parallel straight lines." When do they intersect? When does a circle become non-circular? When does the sum of the interior angles of a triangle not equal the sum of two right angles?" Answer: "Of course when Bolshevism entered science!" According to the conversation, Poole is a professor of astromechanics at Columbia University.Here are some excerpts from that article: Professor Poole said after reading the newsletter about Einstein's theory of relativity: "In the past few years, the whole world has been in a state of turmoil, both mental and material. Perhaps the unrest in the material aspect is like war, strikes, Underneath the things that can be actually perceived, such as the rise of the Bolsheviks, is the spiritual disturbance that has deeply affected the world. This kind of spiritual instability is clearly reflected in the attitudes and tendentious expectations held by the public towards social issues. This is the desire to use Radical, untried social practice to overthrow established, proven forms of government. "Spiritual restlessness also afflicts science. There is precisely a conflict in science today that is similar to that in politics and social life. There are many people who yearn for psychological speculations about the universe and for all kinds of whimsy , they want us to abandon proven theories on the basis of which, in fact, the edifice of modern science and mechanics has been built". Then, the Columbia University professor further discussed the development history of gravitational theory from Newton to Einstein. He concluded: The fact that the bending effect (the light is affected by the sun) has been measured is of great significance in science.This result may change some hitherto accepted ideas about the density and distribution of matter in the vicinity of the sun.But I don't understand how such observations can prove the existence of the fourth dimension?Or how can we overthrow the basic concepts of geometry? I read various articles on the fourth dimension, including Einstein's theory of relativity and other psychological speculations about the composition of the universe.After reading it, I felt the same way Senator Blonde felt after a celebratory dinner in Washington, where he said he felt like traveling in Wonderland with Alice and drinking tea with madmen. A reporter once asked Einstein what he thought of "Professor C.L. Poole", and the professor insisted that Einstein's theory was "untestable" and that "we don't need Einstein, we rely on Newton's laws can explain all physical phenomena, even the perturbation of Mercury".Einstein replied wittily (New York Times 1921, 4, 4): "I have not seen Professor Poole's talk". British astronomer A. S．Eddington was the first person to introduce general relativity to the English-speaking world.In 1916, during World War I, he received Einstein's 1915 paper from the Dutch astronomer Desert.Realizing the importance of Einstein's research topic, Eddington delved into the "absolute calculus" that Einstein used to understand general relativity.In his famous "Report on the Theory of Gravitational Relativity" (1918) for the London Physical Society, he called the general theory of relativity "a revolution in thought, which profoundly affected astronomy, physics and philosophy, and pushed them to the top. on a new path of development that will never be reversed".Later, Eddington published a popular book on relativity, entitled Space, Time, and Gravity (1920) and a book for scientists, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (1923). In 1954, Einstein called it "the best introduction to relativity in any language" (p.281).It is therefore interesting that Eddington's introduction to this new idea of ​​physics speaks of the charge that physics has been invaded by a scientific Bolshevism. Eddington's speech at Gifford entitled "The Nature of the Physical World" (1928. Eddington discusses in the opening paragraph those currents of thought which "resolutely oppose Bolshevism in modern science and cling to the old order" , he compared the "fundamental revolution in our conception of space and time" (introduced by Einstein and Minkowski between 1905 and 1908) with the "greatest revolution in the conception of matter since Democritus" introduced by Rutherford in 1911 Transformation" was compared. He said that Rutherford's work did not "cause a strong shock" among the general public, and that "the new view of space and time was considered revolutionary in all respects"; to say In terms of so-called Bolshevism, he tends to think that the real protagonist should be Rutherford rather than Einstein. Like some in the 1920s, Eddington was acutely aware that revolution is one of the hallmarks of scientific development.He explains in detail why exotic new developments in atomic structure are not usually marked with the red flag of revolutionary development.He said: "The revolution in adjectives expressing qualitative characteristics is often used in two great modern developments, one is the theory of relativity and the other is quantum theory".These two theories, he explained, were new discoveries that unraveled the mysteries of the world and brought about a fundamental "change" in "the way we think about the world" (ibid., 2). Eddington led the 1919 solar eclipse observations, which confirmed a prediction of general relativity (see Chapter 27).He believed that the relativity revolution, like the atomic structure and quantum theory revolutions, was only a concrete example of the progress of scientific knowledge at a revolutionary pace.He closes with the question: "Is there nothing to suggest that the next thirty years won't be another revolution, or even an outright counter-revolution"?Counter-revolution here is analogous to political counter-revolution.Eddington goes on to mention the notion of revolutionary succession, and concludes his The Nature of the Physical World (1928, 352-353) with the analogy that "science develops like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle" (he wrote The language and imagination used in the comparison are very similar to those used by Kuhn 40 years later).In his view, the scientific revolution does not mean that the various plates that have been arranged and connected must be dismantled, but that in adding new plates, we must revise the original ideas of the structure of the jigsaw puzzle that will be formed.Eddington's concluding words are: the systems of Euclid, Ptolemy and Newton "have fulfilled their mission", and the systems of Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford and Heisenberg "will inevitably give way in the future A system that has a fuller understanding of the world...But every revolution in scientific thought is like new lyrics on old scores. The past is not completely discarded but sublated. When we try to express the truth Of all the blunders of science, there is a steadily growing core of scientific truth: one can say about scientific truth: the more it changes, the more it is true". In the period between the two world wars, many other scientists also mentioned the problem of revolution, M.Curie wrote a memoir of her late husband P.Curie's text (1923, 133-134), she said: P.When Curie was promoted to professor at Saubernet, he gave a lecture on symmetry, vectors and tensors, and crystals, while also "referring to the discoveries made in this new field (radioactivity) and to the scientifically caused revolution". From this century to the 1930s, there was a prolific writer on new science named James Jeans, who, like Eddington, was a British astronomer.One of his later works, Physics and Philosophy (1943, ch. 1), begins with a discussion of revolutions in science.The first sentence of the book recalls George Sutton and Lord Rutherford (ibid., ch. 1) and asserts that "the development of science generally proceeds step by step, step by step," and that there is a layer of unknown on the journey of science" Fog", facing it, "even the most keen-sighted explorer", "could not see a few paces away".However, "this fog sometimes dissipates, and it is in a wider field of vision that surprising discoveries can be made."In this way, "a kaleidoscopic combination of all sciences is possible", that is to say, there will be a revolution that will bring "shock waves of reorganization, and will go deep into the various sciences", and even make "all the present human beings Thoughts" are updated.According to Jeans, such typical "reorganizations" or revolutions are rare, and he mentions only three that "soon took hold: the Copernican Revolution, the Darwinian Revolution, and the Newtonian Revolution. A fourth such revolution is currently under investigation in Physics "The significance of this revolution goes far beyond physics," as it affects our worldview.In this world, we construct life.In short, "this revolution affects philosophy".Applying Karl Popper's categories, each of these four revolutions contained important ideological revolutions.Jeans (1943, 14) argued that the progressive physics of the revolution "mainly consists of two theories: relativity and quantum mechanics. Physicists' Contrasting Views About the Scientific Revolution The few examples discussed above show that, during the first half of this century, the use of revolutionary concepts and metaphors abounded in reference to political and social revolutions, scientific and cultural revolutions, revolutions in painting, music, and architecture.But throughout this century there have also been many who have denied scientific revolutions, whether constructive or destructive.Early opponents of the idea that revolutions made scientific progress included the physicist R. A．Millikan has long been regarded as a leading figure in American science.His first article on the Scientific Revolution was published in the May 1912 issue of Popular Science Monthly.His article was on the "kinetic theory of matter" and the "atomic theory of electricity," and he declared straight to the point that he was "very willing to engage in a polemic against the idea that there are supposedly revolutionary discoveries in science," and that "those who listen to Those who hold this view are mostly people who are not directly engaged in scientific research."Referring to those so-called "revolutionary discoveries that keep being announced," Millikan said, "Nine times out of ten these discoveries are as revolutionary as those of seven-year-old children" who were "told by their teachers that 5+2= Before 7, they only knew that 3+4=7" (p. 418). The main thrust of Millikan's attack was directed at the idea that the continual emergence of fundamental new discoveries completely demolished the existing edifice of knowledge.In a speech he gave in February 1917, his ideas became more concrete.He said: "The development of science almost never occurs in a revolutionary way" (1917, 175), "the headlines of the newspapers" are often "revolutionary", but the revolution "almost never occurs".He repeated repeatedly: No! "The progress of science is usually a gradual process, almost never by revolution".He went on to say: "Even if sometimes some of our work is revolutionary, it is by no means always".However, during more than one hundred years (or at most one hundred and thirty years), "revolutionary changes in all external conditions of human life are much more sufficient than in any era in history." When discussing revolutions, scientists often notice the close This typical inconsistency of Ligan (p. 172). K． K．Darrow, who was secretary of the American Physical Society for many years, was a conservative with views similar to Millikan's.In one of his books, "The Renaissance of Physics" (1937, 15), he emphasized that the "way of thinking" of Newton, Laplace and Fourier is still very applicable today, and therefore should be "celebrated" in physics. conservatism".Instead of promoting "entirely new ideas in physics, horrific violations of classical physics, and many surprising discoveries".He understood, of course, that physics had changed "so much that strong words should be used to describe it," but such descriptions must be measured and never carried too far, as is often heard today." He Pointing out: "It is very inappropriate to think that classical physics has been overthrown, abolished, negated, revolutionized." He went on to say: "No one should talk about revolutions in physics unless he immediately adds There will never be a revolution anywhere that has more virtues than the gradualness, rigor, reliability of the old system". He concludes: No! "Revolution is not an appropriate word! "There is no revolution in modern physics, there is only "extremely rapid evolution" (p. 16). Like others who held a similar view, Darrow believed that the word revolution implied a complete break with the past in a way that "physics never did."The truth, he says, is that "physicists hate giving up any theory that has always worked. We rarely do that in practice."Darrow concluded that, as a rule, innovators of theoretical physics "are most concerned with making themselves legitimate successors to the dominant lines of the classics."I don't know if Darrow meant anything by saying that, but by 1937 the scientific literature was full of revolutionary phrases.In fact, "revolution" and Darrow's "extremely rapid evolution" might be considered synonymous, provided that the word "revolution" has an extremely political connotation and that a scientific revolution implies the destruction or sweeping away of the old, And replace it with something completely new.In fact, such scientific revolutions have indeed occurred, for example, from Aristotle's system to Newton's physics, and from Ptolemy's system to Kepler's astronomy.But many revolutions are not always complete breaks with the past as Darrow understands them. Chemist and philosopher with dual Polish-French nationality A.Meyerson was a person who had great influence in the fields of history of science and philosophy of science in the 1930s.The attitude towards revolution reflected in his works is somewhat similar to the previous ones, but not so biased.He rarely used the concept of revolution, and once he mentioned the revolution in quantum physics incidentally, "which overturned the picture of reality" (1931, 69).He often uses "the evolution of science" (p.116) or "the evolution of mathematics" (p.326).His approach is consistent with some people who hold similar views such as J.Dulwich is similar. J．Dulwich had planned to "explain the evolution of science" (p. 416).Meyerson quotes a quote from Madame Curie (1927, 758), which he very much agrees with, in mourning H. A．Lorenz said about "the evolution of quantum theory and new mechanical shocks".Meyerson's aim was more to accurately grasp and describe the thought processes of philosophers and scientists than to write a history of science.He stresses that his purpose depends on his following beliefs.The belief is that "scientific evolution" is the history of changing worldviews.The so-called "scientific revolution" refers to those major events that make scientists change their basic concepts, such as chemists abandoning the theory of phlogiston, and physicists abandoning the theory of heat and mass (P.xii).His concern is how scientists can readily abandon basic premises in favor of new theories that are often diametrically opposed to older, established theories.During his time, relativity gave rise to what he refers to as "evolution" (not revolution!).He concluded that the "decisive advance" or "revolution" of science manifested itself as a process that ran counter to the "basic evolution of science."These "revolutions" often occur because "the great changer (Galavoisier) broke the shackles that bound research methods and ways of thinking".But Meyerson was more concerned with the process of evolution than with the process of revolution, even to the extent of seeing some revolutions as evolution. Recent developments in physics have given rise to much talk of a scientific revolution, and in the spring of 1963, E.Rabinovich, editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences, gave four public lecture series on the scientific revolution at the University of Chicago.He pointed out (1963.9.15): Only our age "can personally experience three simultaneous revolutions", the first two of which are "social revolution" (replacing the old way of governing with a new method) and "national revolution". "(the abolition of colonies), the third revolution "is brought about by science and its offspring, technology".He emphasized that "scientific revolutions" are characterized differently from social and political revolutions, which are "local" or "temporary" upheavals, whereas the former are "global, enormous, irreversible changes" , the scientific revolution told people that "poverty will not last".It can be seen that the theme he focuses on is slightly different from the previous ones: the scientific revolution has changed our concept of "habitat" and changed the concept of "our position in the universe".Out of an unconscious imitation of Freud, he proposed three revolutions, the first two being the Copernican revolution and the Darwin revolution, but the third revolution was not the emergence of psychoanalysis but the "universe scope". expansion" (he mistakenly believed that the "concentric view of the world" had to do with a central man).He then discussed his well-known subject "The Revolution in Nuclear Physics" and the question of "Human beings have the ability to self-destruct".The following role of the scientific revolution to which he draws attention deserves our excerpts (p. 16-17) Modern science has allayed people's worries about the future: within a foreseeable time, all technological development will eventually have to stop, because coal and oil will all be exhausted.When the solar system is about to die, mankind may still have to wait sadly for the inevitable destruction, but the change in our current vision is similar to the difference between the desire for life of the dying old man and the young man who has just started life. Rabinovich called the duality of modern physics and the "abandonment of strict causality" "an important revolution in human world outlook" (p.18), and the theory of relativity is another "ideological revolution" (1963. 10.11). 拉比诺维奇在一次演讲中，运用了"成功的永久性科学革命"的概念并预言它必然会"影叶…各个领域人们的思想"。他把战争的"非理性化"和外交失去了"它的最重要的工具——花言巧语的战争威胁"（1963．11．9．）（1963．12．14．）看作是科学革命的后果，这种后果在"原子弹和洲际导弹面世后"达到了极点。在考察了他所谓的"本世纪科学革命"的一个主要后果之后，他以一个微妙的按语作结"国际科学家共同体是世界共同体的雏形"（1963．10．11．）。 诺贝尔奖金获得者伊·普里高津在他的著作《从存在到演化》一书（1980，xii）的序言中，谈到他的写作目的是："向读者转达我们正处在科学革命时代的证据"。在这场革命中，有一个对科学方法的"真正地位和意义"的重新估价的问题。普里高津把这一时期同科学史上另两个戏剧性的时期做了比较，这两个时期是"古希腊科学方法的诞生"和伽利略时代"科学方法的复兴"。普里高津希望读者懂得"当我谈到科学革命的时候，并不仅仅意味着科学中的某些重大发现，如夸克，脉冲星和分子生物学等"。在普里高津看来，科学革命的意义在于抛弃长期以来坚持"相信微观粒子——分子，原子，基本粒子的简单性"这样使他引出三个主要论点：1）"不可逆过程和可逆过程一样真实"，2）不可逆过程在"物质世界中起着根本性的建设性作用"，3）"不可逆性深深植根于动力学之中"。这样的一场革命明显与通常的"科学进化"不同（p．xvi）。像许多科学家一样，普里高津运用了革命的概念，但没有将其重要性进一步展开。由于这个术语运用得很少，因此它在书中显得非常醒目。在第2章论述"古典动力学"的开头，它出现在一个显著的位置上，普里高津把古典动力学看成是"20世纪科学革命诸如相对论和量子论的起点"（p．19）。 A．费歇1979年发表了一篇物理学评论，他谈到了M．吉尔一曼对物理学"统一"问题的见解。吉尔-曼期待着"以越来越深刻的方式弄懂我们生活于其中的宇宙的本质"，他说他企盼在物理学中"发生一场革命"，这场革命同"过去发生的日心说，进化论，狭义相对论，量子力学革命一样伟大"（费歇1979，12）。 S．温伯格（1977，17f）把"狭义相对论和量子力学的发展"看成是"伟大的革命"。但他告诫我们不应把革命的概念不恰当地运用于20世纪物理学的每个方面，例如他感到"量子场论自1930年以来的发展过程中，基本要素已经具备，没有必要再来一场革命"。 亚·摩拉1958年在物理学家沃·泡利逝世前不久同他进行了一次谈话。这次谈话的内容使我们能深入了解科学革命的潮流以及年轻的物理学家发动科学革命的动机。这种革命的概念决不会带来破坏性的污点，相反表达了人们的一种共同感受：革命是科学发展的创建性力量。泡利对摩拉说："在我年轻时，我想我是当时最好的形式主义者。我认为我是革命的，如果有重大问题出现，我就能成为解决这些问题的人。而重大问题的提出和解决由其他人完成了，我自然就成了古典主义者而不是革命者"，而后他说："我年轻时太蠢"，这句话显然是一种反省（摩拉和里钦伯1982，xxiv）。 物理学之外关于革命的见解 赞成和反对科学革命的见解在生物科学中同样也有反映。分子生物学和联合基因工程技术在新闻媒介中，继电子计算机之后第二个获得了"革命"的称谓。 1918年3月4日，《波士顿环球报》上一篇文章的标题就是"生物科学革命的到来"。文章着重介绍了"新加利福尼亚实验室"，它报道说："该实验室依靠蛋白质可以精确地加以分析"和"基因可以从最基本点制造出来"的手段"正在使生物科学发生革命"。 "科学时代"（《纽约时报》，1983．4．12．）上有一篇文章标题是"DNA密码：革命的3O年"。 1953年4月25日，J． D．沃森和F． H． C．克里克在《自然》上发表文章，宣布了他们关于"生物遗传主导化学结构"的发现，许多科学家都认为这"显然是本世纪医学科学中最重要的发现"。 《科学时代》上的这篇文章就是为纪念这一重大发现30周年而作的，目前很少有人不同意上述见解，或P．梅达沃的见解（《纽约书评》1977．10．27．）："毫无疑问，20世纪最伟大的科学发现……是确认脱氧核糖核酸（DNA）的化学结构——具体地说是DNA中四个不同的核苷酸在分子肽链上的排列次序——蕴含着基因密码并且是有关指令的物质载体，通过这些指令，一代有机体制约下一代的发展"，这就是"分子遗传学的伟大革命"（p．19）。甚至在做出这一发现之前，这两位合作者之中至少有一位显然已看到了这项进展的革命性质。沃森在那一时期的工作总结中谈了他的看法："双螺旋结构——将使生物学发生革命"（1980，116）。 我们已经看到，在20世纪前期就发生了心理学革命。曾建立起第一个心理学实验室的W．冯特在他的很有影响的著作《生理心理学基础》（1837年第1版）的第5，6版（1902；1908）中讨论过革命。他指出："作为一门实验科学，生理心理学致力于心理学研究的改革，这场改革的重要意义并不亚于引入实验导致自然科学思想的革命"，他甚至认为心理学研究的这种变革也许比自然科学革命更为重要，"在自然科学领域，即使没有实验，在适当的条件下，精确的观察也是可能的，而在心理学领域，没有实验则是无能为力的"。 我们也许还可以从《不列颠百科全书》的不同版本中两位人类学家的争论中看到20世纪思想革命的突出地位，他们争论的问题是，人类文化是在全球各地域独立地演化发展的，还是产生于埃及或其附近，然后再逐渐传播到全世界的。在该书第11版（1910－1911）的一篇关于人类学的文章里，文化演化的辩护者E． B．泰勒写到："人类学"致力于"系统积累从前人如佩尔泰斯，拉泰特，科里斯蒂及其后继者们所作出发现以来的所有知识"，"这一繁重的任务"。他写到："目前已没有什么发现能同考察骨洞和漂砾层所获得的奇异发现相媲美"，"这些奇异的发现导致了一场现有关于人类起源理论的迫切的革命"。 《不列颠百科全书》1922年第12版除包含第11版的29卷外，还增加了3卷补充了1910－1921年间的新内容。第12版共有两篇人类学的文章。一篇就是泰勒写的，新收入的一篇是G． E．史密斯写的，史密斯是文化"扩散"论的拥护者，他的观点同泰勒的"人类学发现……已经达到了极限"的"明确断言"相反。在他看来，从那时几乎每一年，人类学领域都有"丰富的资料发现"。 "对这些资料重要性的认识也更为清楚"。他强调指出：这些年"人类学的每一个分支都发生了深刻的革命"，在许多令人惊奇的新发现中，史密斯提到了新近的有关皮尔丹人的新发现。史密斯列举这一例子让人难以理解（如维克多·希尔兹所说），因为已有人向史密斯本人指出，有理由怀疑上述发现可能是恶作剧者搞的骗局。尽管两位人类学家的观点相互对立，一个认为文化的演化是独立的，另一个认为文化的演化是传播的，但他们都明确地认为是科学革命推动了人类学的发展。 在1981年召开的世纪之交的美国形态学讨论会上，科学革命是中心议题之一。会上，G．爱伦（1978）提出了一个未经认可的观点：1890到1910年间，美国的生物学研究经历了一个从形态学到实验生物学的飞跃。由此导致一个更基本的问题，科学的发展是"周期性的飞跃"还是"一个层次到另一个层次上的革命"（1981，172-174）？ J．麦斯凯恩在论文中指出"接受科学的发展是迅速的，不连续的观点的生物历史学家在逐渐增多"，虽然她认为哲学历史学家并不一定赞同"库恩关于科学革命的观点"，也许他们只是觉得"从事科学工作的个人或团体抛弃陈旧的观念会使科学的发展加快"（p．89），而他自己与上述历史学家的观点相反："我坚持认为承认科学发展的这种革命的观点会使努力真实地描述科学未来图景的企图发生混乱"。她相信"连续观"，她总结说用革命或进化这类用语讨论美国的生物学会导致混乱，"把科学的发展变化一般地看作是进化的还是革命的，连续的还是不连续的"这样的问题是"吹毛求疵"。 R．莱戈在他的论文中，很少泛泛地提到革命问题，他主张要"坚持古生物学中的形态学传统"，因此，"运用连续观而不是革命观，才能最好地了解那个时代生物科学的发展历史"（1981，129－130）。 在对批评的回答中，G．爱伦摆脱光前研究的狭窄领域，以便把与进化相对立的革命的概念引入科学中去。他坚信"从1890年到1910年间，生物学领域中发生了出其不意的或革命性的变化（在库恩的意义上）"。他提出了"一种进化的模式……在这个模式中，进化和革命两个因素始终都在起作用"。他强调说，根本上说来，"任何革命性变化都有赖于先前的进化，反之，所有进化性的变化都将导致…革命性的变化"（p．173）。这意味着"量的"或"小的，逐渐的"，"进化的"变化会导致"质的"，或"大的，完全不同的"，"革命的"变化。他认为当量变到质变的转化缓慢发生时，就是进化，当这种转化迅速完成时，就是革命。他把科学的发展看作物种的演化中的"间断的平衡"模式相似，这个模式是S． J．古尔德和N．爱尔德雷季在古生物学研究中提出来的。他们认为在生物进化的长河中，有"迅速变化的时期，新物种的产生和旧物种的消亡都是很快的，接着便是缓慢变化的稳定时期，使物种与环境完全相适应"。在进化生物学中引入一种带根本性的但尚未被接受的观点所产生的新问题比它解决的更多，正如F．丘吉尔在他的文章的结论中指出的那样，他认为"所谓人类也具有类似的组织和个体的发展趋势是值得怀疑的"（1981，181）。 上述争论给近年来出现的一个非常主要的反对派的事实提供了佐证。那些人反对革命是科学发展的一个特征。我的一位科学同仁听说我正在写作一本关于科学革命的著作后，不只一次地写信给我，要求就这个课题跟我展开争论。使我感到吃惊的是，他的每一封来信都流露出对科学中的"革命"这一概念和词汇本身的敌意，甚至当他压根儿还不知道我打算怎么写我的这本书时就是如此。很长时间里我都感到迷惑不解，革命的概念中到底有什么东西那么容易引起敌意？我对此曾进行了一番思索，我认为这种情形某种程度上是出自对库恩著作的反感。很明显，并木是所有的科学家都同意P．梅达沃（1979，91）的见解："人们接受了库恩的观点，这是一个肯定的信号，表明科学家们发现这些观点很有启发性，因为他们自己没有时间进行纯哲学上的思考"。但是，尽管"库恩的观点有助于说明科学家的心理"，而且是"对科学史饶有兴味的评论"（p.92），然而库恩的观点有一个特点很容易激怒许多科学的实际工作者。因为库恩的观点很露骨，他认为大部分科学研究都是一种"扫尾工作"，不断前进中的科学的这一特点显然不被那些"不是一门成熟科学的实际工作者"所欣赏（1970，24）。实际上，"大多数科学家在他的全部科学生涯中所从事的正是这样的"扫尾性"工作。尽管库恩说这类工作"干起来……也是令人着迷的"，但许多科学家定会觉得这种独特的表达方式是在贬低他们的形象。因为科学家应当是勇敢的探索者，新道路的开拓者，辉煌成就的获得者和真理事业的推进者。