Thomas Kuhn與Imre Lakatos有關國際關係理論的爭論

Abstract

Thomas Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions has created a common belief in the field of international relation that one side will eventually triumph, and that the triumphant field will evolve as a coherent discipline based on the superior contributions of the winning paradigm. In contrast, I see the discipline as being constantly engaged in the debate between paradigms and theories. The progress of science in the field of international relations is a function of these disagreements, not a truth held by individual paradigm. Each paradigm with its various fundamental assumptions sees a side of reality that is important but can only be depicted from its own approach, not transformed into the other, or subsumed into some grand synthesis. Thomas Kuhn's concept of scientific revolutions, which allows only one paradigm in the field at a time, is not plausible in the field of international relations because this would be the equivalent of asking us to use a magnifier or telescope alone for nature research conducted in nature; instead, the application of constant competition among approaches to international relations provides different dimensions and bring us closer to the reality that we are seeking. The progress in science comes from constant competition in approaches, with their inflexibility and rigid hardcore assumptions brought into question, resulting in a array of flexible and amended auxiliary assumptions. In a nutshell, not only does constant competition among approaches contribute to the progress of science, it also reduces the tension between material and ideational factors in the field.