مسیرهای تلاقی و همکاری فلسفه علم با سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور، تهران

چکیده

فلسفه علم، علم را به مثابه نظامی از ساختارهای مفهومی و گزاره‌ای و فرآیندهایی همچون تبیین، حل مسئله، اکتشاف و ارزیابی مورد ملاحظه قرار می­دهد و از صدق و کذب و معناداری و توجیه آن می‌پرسد و بحث می‌کند. سیاست‌گذاری علم، فناوری و نوآوری از سوی دیگر، حوزه‌ای مطالعاتی است که علم را به عنوان یک نهاد اقتصادی-اجتماعی-سیاسی تلقی و نسبت آن را با مقولاتی همچون رشد اقتصادی، رقابت‌پذیری، امنیت، اشتغال و رفاه می‌کاود و توصیه‌هایی را برای عملکرد بهتر نهاد علم از یک منظر اجتماعی صورت‌بندی می‌کند. این مقاله با تکیه بر مجموعه‌ای از مطالعات اسنادی و روش تحلیل مفهومی به مسیرهای ممکن همکاری میان دو حوزه فلسفه علم با مطالعات نوآوری و سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری می‌پردازد. نتیجه استدلال‌ها و تحلیل‌های مطرح‌شده در مقاله این است که علی‌رغم استبعاد ظاهری، این دو حوزه دست کم در چهار مسیر زایا می‌توانند همکاری کنند: ارائه تحلیل فلسفی از سازه‌های معرفتی و روش‌های رایج در مطالعات نوآوری، توسعه مفاهیم نوآوری و رشد اقتصادی برای دربرگرفتن ابعاد مسئولانه و اخلاقی آنها، کمک به درک ابعاد ایده‌پردازانه و خلاقانه فرآیند نوآوری با وام‌گیری از علوم شناختی و بالاخره کمک به شکل‌گیری نوعی نگاه نقادانه به فناوری از طریق بکارگیری منابع فلسفه فناوری. چهار مسیر فوق، چشم‌انداز همکاری میان دو حوزه مذکور را ترسیم می‌کنند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

dor 20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.2.7

عنوان مقاله [English]

Avenues of Contact and Collaboration for Philosophy of Science with STI Policy

نویسنده [English]

  • Arash Moussavi
Assistant Professor, National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP), Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Philosophy of science considers science as a system including conceptual and propositional structures and as processes like explanation, problem-solving, discovery, and evaluation. It studies truth, falsehood, meaningfulness, and justification. On the other hand, science, technology, and innovation (STI) policy is a field that considers science as an economic-social-political institution and studies its relationships with economic growth, competitiveness, security, employment, and welfare. Applying documentary research and conceptual analysis, this paper investigates possible paths of collaboration between these two research fields. The main conclusion of the paper is that, despite their apparent difference and separation, these two fields could cooperate in at least four productive ways: Providing philosophical analysis about epistemic constructs and common methods in STI policy, developing concepts of innovation and economic growth to include responsible and ethical dimensions, helping to the formation of a deeper understanding of the creational aspects of innovation process borrowing from cognitive science, and lastly but not least, helping to the formation of a critical approach to technology applying resources from philosophy of technology, are four directions that sketch landscapes of collaboration between these two fields.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Philosophy of Science
  • Innovation
  • Innovation Studies
  • Science and technology policy
  • Interdisciplinary
[1] Thagard, P. (1988). Computational philosophy of science.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.
[2] Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (translation of Logik der Forschung) Hutchinson.
[3] Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago (University of Chicago Press) 1962.
[4] Hylton, P. (2018). Willard van Orman Quine. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[5] Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: Verso.
[6] Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery (2nd ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
[7] Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory, London, Boston: Routledge and K. Paul.
[8] Nelson, R. R. (1959). The simple economics of basic scientific research. Journal of political economy, 67(3), 297-306.
[9] Arrow, K. J. (1962). The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors: A Conference of the Universities–National Bureau Committee for Economic Research and the Committee on Economic Growth of the Social Science Research Council.
[10] Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An Overview of Innovation.  In Landau, R., and Rosenberg, N. (eds.). The Positive Sum Game. Washington DC, National Academy Press.
[11] Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (1999). Systems of Innovaion: Theory and Policy for the Demand Side. Technology in Society, 21(3), 63-79.
[12] Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R. R., Silverberg, G., and Soete, L. (1988). Technical Change and Economic Theory. London: Printer Publishers.
[13] Lundvall, B. (Ed.). (1992). National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers. Vol. 2.
[14] Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press on Demand.
[15] Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Printer Publishers.
[16] Martin, B. R. (2016). Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy, 43(3), 432-450.
[17] Elster, J. (1983). Expplaining Technical Change: a Case Study in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[18] Moussavi, A., & Kermanshah, A. (2018). Innovation systems approach: A philosophical appraisal. Philosophy of Management, 17(1), 59-77.
[19] Thagard, P. (1992).Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[20] Godin, B. (2009). Innovation: the History of a Category. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper, 1, 1-67.
[21] Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2 (pp. 19-35). Springer, Cham.
[22] Khaleghi, A. (2015). Ethics of Technology, a Framework for Evaluation. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 7(1), 69-82. {In Persian}.
[23] Khalili, M. (2018). Can Technological Artifacts be Good or Bad?. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 10(3), 17-28. {In Persian}.
[24] Blok, V. (2018). Philosophy of innovation: a research agenda. Philosophy of Management, 17(1), 1-5.
[25] Dyrenfurth, M. (2016). The Interface between Cognitive Science and Innovation. Paper delivered at the ASSE’s 123rd Annual Conference & Exposition, June 26-29, New Orleans, LA.
[26] Kapp, E. (1877). Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik: zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Kultur aus neuen Gesichtspunkten. Felix Meiner Verlag.
[27] Reydon, T. A. C. (2012). Philosophy of Technology. In Feiser, J., & Dowden, B. (Eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[28] Rabbani, A. (2017). Review of the Perspectives on the Religious Science. Journal of Islamic Theology, 26(103), 9-39. {In Persian}.
[29] Mesbah Yazdi, M. (2013). Relationship between Science and Religion. Qom, Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute. {In Persian}.
[30] Javadi Amoli, A. (2008). The Status of Reason in Religious Knowledge. Qom, Asra Publications. {In Persian}.
[31] Hassani, S., Abtahi, S., & AliPour, M. (2011). Religious Science, Views and Considerations, Second Edition. Qom, Research Center of Hawza and University. {In Persian}.
[32] Bagheri, Kh. (2003). The Nature of Religious Science: An Epistemological View of Religion and the Humanities. Tehran, Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. {In Persian}.
[33] Golshani, M. (1998). From secular science to religious science. Tehran, Institute of Humanities and Cultural Studies. {In Persian}.
[34] Soroush, A. (1987). Taffarog-e Sonae. Tehran, Soroush Publishing. {In Persian}.
[35] Soroush, A. (1992). Osaf-e Parsayan. Tehran, Serat Cultural Institute.{In Persian}.
[36] Shoraay-e Aali-e Enghelaab-e Farhangi. (2010). Naghshe Jaame Elmi-e Keshvar. Shora Press. {In Persian}.