Theoretical Foci of Contemporary Social Epistemology Research

Marx pointed out that “society is the product of human interaction, and society is the true community of human beings”; in other words, understanding society as the “true community of human beings” is a rational essential determination of society. The highest level of Marxist epistemology is to transform the world through practice. In the knowledge economy dominated by information technology, such practice is more often manifested as knowledge-production practice. Social epistemology is a philosophical study of the social dimension of knowledge, and at the same time a philosophical study focused on knowledge-production practice. Knowledge-production practice is the fundamental pathway for modern society to understand and transform the world; it is a core concept of the founders and classical writers of Marxism, and also the ultimate understanding of Marxist researchers in the New Era. This is both the connotation and theoretical value of Marxist philosophy and the fundamental task and highest goal of social epistemology research. Centering on the production practice of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, social epistemology shares the same value orientation as the Marxist view of productive forces. Developing research on social epistemology undoubtedly has a very positive significance for upholding and developing Marxist epistemology.

马克思指出“社会是人们交互作用的产物，社会是人的真正的共同体”，换句话说，社会是“人的真正共同体”的理解是对社会的合理的本质规定。马克思主义认识论的最高层次是通过实践改造世界，在信息技术主导的知识经济中，这样的实践更多地表现为知识生产实践。社会认识论是关于知识社会维度的哲学研究，同时也是关注于知识生产实践的哲学研究。知识生产实践是现代社会认识世界、改造世界的根本途径，是马克思主义创始人和经典作家的核心理念，也是新时期马克思主义研究者的终极认识。这既是马克思主义哲学的内涵和理论价值，也是社会认识论研究的根本任务和最高目标。围绕知识特别是科学知识的生产实践，社会认识论与马克思主义生产力观具有相同的价值取向，发展社会认识论研究对于坚持和发展马克思主义认识论无疑具有非常积极的意义。

What Is the Social Dimension of Knowledge

何为知识的社会维度

“What is the social dimension of knowledge” is an important perspective for understanding the development of epistemology in the 20th century, and also a theoretical focus for understanding contemporary social epistemology research. For a long time, the generation and justification of knowledge were regarded as individual matters. Consequently, rationalists represented by Descartes and Leibniz regarded reason as the source of knowledge, emphasizing the importance of individual reason for knowledge, while empiricists represented by Locke and Hume regarded individual experience as the source of knowledge. Whether reason or experience, what they depicted was often an image of a “solitary knower”; knowledge was the creation and output of the individual subject. However, the great development of the era and of scientific knowledge triggered a reconstruction of the understanding of the attributes of knowledge, making the transcendence of the understanding of the individual attributes of knowledge a historical necessity. On the one hand, with the external study of the sociology of scientific knowledge, social factors that had been overlooked or simply not accepted were incorporated into the generation of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, the internal social interaction of knowledge also prompted people to rethink its possibility and the necessity of its existence. Thus, the social dimension of knowledge was highlighted on both the internal and external levels of knowledge. The social-dimension view of knowledge emphasizes the social attributes inherent in knowledge itself, emphasizes the importance of social factors in the process of knowledge generation, and emphasizes an epistemology with social characteristics. The most important concept it contains is that whether it is the generation or the acquisition of knowledge, it depends to a large extent on the social attributes of knowledge itself and on the social interaction of knowing subjects.

“何为知识的社会维度”，这是理解20世纪知识论发展的一个重要视角，也是理解当代社会认识论研究的理论聚焦。长久以来，知识的产生和辩护都被看作个人的事情，也因此，以笛卡尔、莱布尼茨为代表的理性主义者把理性看成知识的来源，强调个人理性对知识的重要性，而以洛克、休谟为代表的经验主义者认为个人经验是知识的来源。无论理性抑或经验刻画出的往往是一种“孤独的认知者”形象，知识是主体个人的创造和产出。但时代与科学知识的大发展引发了对知识属性认识的重构，对知识个体属性的认识超越就成为一种历史必然。一方面，随着科学知识社会学的外部研究，被人们所忽视或根本不予接纳的社会因素被纳入科学知识的生成中；另一方面，知识的内在社会互动也促使人们重新思考其可能性与存在的必要性。由此，知识的社会维度就在知识的内外两个层面得到了凸显，社会维度的知识观强调了知识本身所具有的社会属性，强调了知识产生过程中社会因素的重要性，强调了一种带有社会特性的认识论，其蕴含的最重要观念就是无论是知识的产生还是知识的获得，很大程度上都依赖于知识本身的社会属性，依赖于知识主体的社会互动。

First, the generation of knowledge is essentially a social activity. On the one hand, knowledge theories are often produced collectively across time and space and transmitted within communities, thus possessing a strong commonality; on the other hand, knowledge theories are often generated through the division of labor and cooperation in social organizations, thus possessing a strong collaborative nature. Second, the acquisition of knowledge is more of a social activity. We live daily in a world shared with others; most of our knowledge is obtained through social interaction and is internalized within the social dimension of knowledge. We understand knowledge, examine justification, and confirm sources through the social interaction of knowledge production, transmission, and application. Third, the transmission of knowledge is essentially a social activity. People’s daily communication is conducted through the tool of language, and the sociality carried by language is inevitably transmitted to the content it bears. As Alvin Goldman said, “An adult’s worldview largely originates from his social world and can be traced back to social interactions, especially since these interactions and influences are all conducted through the tool of language. Therefore, it is inevitable for epistemology to possess a social dimension, and those epistemologies that only focus on the individual and exclude society are inappropriate.” Hence, when we examine the sociality of knowledge or belief, we naturally emphasize, in epistemological terms, its inherent social attributes and the characteristics of its social dimension.

首先，知识的产生本质上是一种社会活动。一方面，知识理论往往通过集体生产跨越时空并在共同体内部传递，因此具有很强的共有性；另一方面，知识理论往往是在社会组织的分工协作中产生，因此具有很强的协作性。其次，知识的获得更多的是一种社会活动。我们日常生活在一个与他人共处的世界之中，我们的知识更多时候是在社会的交往中得到并内在于知识的社会维度中，通过知识生产、传递与应用的社会互动来理解知识、考察辩护、确证来源。再次，知识的传递实质上是一种社会活动。人们的日常交流都是通过语言这个工具进行的，语言所带有的社会性就不可避免地传递到它所承载的内容之中。这一点正如戈德曼（Alvin Goldman）所说，“成人的世界观很大程度上源于他的社会世界，并追溯至社会互动，特别是这些互动与影响都是通过语言这个工具，因此对认识论来说拥有一种社会维度就是必然的，而那些只关注于个体、将社会排除在外的认识论就是不合适的”。也因此我们在检查知识或信念的社会性时，在认识论上自然就强调了其固有的社会属性、社会维度的特征。

Understanding the social dimension of knowledge means understanding the theoretical focus of contemporary social epistemology; grasping the social dimension of knowledge means grasping the connotation and essence of contemporary social epistemology. Therefore, clarifying the content expressed by the word “knowledge” and the scope covered by the word “social” is a key measure in social epistemology research. Such clarification can be carried out from at least three dimensions: First, the study of science policy for knowledge. According to this understanding, social epistemology is “an intellectual movement with broad interdisciplinary sources that attempts to reconstruct epistemological problems once knowledge is seen as inherently social. It is often regarded as the normative faction of the philosophy of science policy or scientific research.” From this perspective, social epistemology is combined with the policy study of knowledge, dealing with the social approach to knowledge at the institutional and practical levels, and viewing the production and transmission of knowledge in a relatively loose sense. Second, the study of the social organization of knowledge. The social organization of knowledge becomes a core concept in social epistemology research; how to better transmit knowledge among members and how to achieve knowledge sharing to a greater extent become the themes of research. Third, the study of the social attributes of knowledge. Social epistemology is “conceptual and normative research related to the social relations, social functions, social interests, and social institutions of knowledge.” Normativity is a core issue in philosophical epistemology; no matter what kind of epistemology it is, it must first face the normative question of “how one should know.” On this point, as Martin Kusch said, “Social epistemology is the philosophical study of the relevance of community to knowledge. In defining how collectives should be organized in order to produce knowledge better and more efficiently, social epistemology is normative research; this is its central task.”

理解了知识的社会维度，就理解了当代社会认识论的理论聚焦；把握了知识的社会维度，就把握了当代社会认识论的内涵实质。也因此廓清“知识”一词所表达的内容，“社会”一词所涵盖的范围就是社会认识论研究的关键举措，这样的廓清至少可以从三个维度展开：其一，知识的科学政策研究。按照这一理解，社会认识论是“有着广泛跨学科来源的一种思想运动，它试图重建认识论问题，一旦知识被看作是内在社会性的。它通常被看成是哲学的科学政策或科学研究的规范派别”。这一视角下社会认识论就与知识的政策研究结合在一起，在制度与实践的层面上处理知识的社会进路，在较为宽松的意义上看待知识的生产和传递。其二，知识的社会组织研究。知识的社会组织成为社会认识论研究的核心理念，如何更好地在成员间进行知识传递、如何更大程度上达到知识的共享就成为研究的主题。其三，知识的社会属性研究。社会认识论是“对知识的社会关系、社会作用、社会利益以及社会制度相关的概念性研究和规范性研究”。规范性是哲学知识论研究的核心问题，无论何种认识论首要面对的是“应该如何认识”的规范性问题。在这一点上正如马丁·库什（Martin Kusch）所说，“社会认识论是共同体对知识相关性的哲学研究，在定义集体如何得到组织，以便更好更有效地生产知识上，社会认识论是规范的研究，这是它的中心任务”。

Three Core Issues of Contemporary Social Epistemology

当代社会认识论的三个核心问题

In *The Social Dimension of Knowledge and Contemporary Social Epistemology Research*, the author proposed that, centering on the normative research of social epistemology, three core issues of contemporary social epistemology are constructed and discussed, namely, the problem of testimony, the problem of expert disagreement and choice, and the problem of collective knowledge and collective justification. These issues are necessary and important for the theoretical construction of social epistemology, especially at the level of normative argumentation. Through these normative research contents, one can accurately grasp the internal driving force of social epistemology research, especially by analyzing from the perspective of knowledge acquisition and knowledge sources. Similarly, “In what sense is knowledge social?”, “In what specific aspects is sociality embodied in knowledge-production practice?”, “What exactly is the difference between the collective as a subject of knowledge production and the individual?” — all these questions will, from within epistemology and from within the social dimension of knowledge, present practical demands and theoretical solutions to philosophy. At the same time, answering these questions can, in a philosophical research manner, expand the sources of the social dimension of knowledge, broaden the justification of the social dimension of knowledge, and enrich the system of the social dimension of knowledge.

笔者在《知识社会维度与当代社会认识论研究》中提出，围绕社会认识论的规范性研究，构建和讨论了当代社会认识论的三个核心问题，即陈词问题、专家意见分歧与选择问题、集体性知识与集体辩护问题。这些问题对于社会认识论的理论建构特别是在规范论证的层面而言是必要和重要的。通过这些具有规范性的研究内容，就可以准确地把握社会认识论研究的内在推动力，特别是从知识的获得和知识来源的角度给出分析。与此类似，“知识究竟在什么意义上是社会的？”“知识生产实践当中社会性具体体现在什么方面？”“集体作为知识生产主体与个体的差异究竟体现在哪里？”所有这些疑问都将从认识论的内部、从知识社会维度的内部，向哲学提出实践诉求和理论求解，同时对这些问题的回答能够以一种哲学式的研究方式拓展知识社会维度的来源，扩大知识社会维度的辩护，丰富知识社会维度的体系。

Normativity is the basic standpoint for understanding social epistemology, and on this basis it is also necessary to grasp the theoretical characteristics and practical investigation of social epistemology. From the three dimensions of the sociality of knowledge mentioned above, it can be seen that contemporary social epistemology research is supported by several different research contents, such as Steve Fuller’s normative social epistemology, Alvin Goldman’s veritistic social epistemology, Philip Kitcher’s minimal social epistemology, and constructivist social epistemology. From the perspective of theoretical characteristics, contemporary social epistemology research includes both philosophical research that retains traditional research methods and styles, such as Goldman’s use of truth as the goal of knowledge activity practice, evaluating knowledge activities and knowledge practices by whether they promote or hinder the acquisition of truth, and also sociological research in the form of social constructivism that emerged in the late 20th century. These studies highlight the social interests and class oppression neglected by traditional epistemology, assert that these are the roots of the social dimension of knowledge, and attempt to argue for and defend their theoretical claims. Of course, the common feature of all these theories is that they attempt to discard the defects of traditional epistemology and try to introduce the social dimension of knowledge into it; the difference lies in the variation in the way this social dimension of knowledge is articulated. Apart from grasping theoretical characteristics, another fascinating aspect of social epistemology research is that, with the gradual deepening of the analysis of the social dimension of knowledge, its practical issues become increasingly prominent. As Marx pointed out, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.” [1]1 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” XI. Social epistemology research emphasizes the practice of scientific knowledge production, examining the social dimension of knowledge in concrete practice, and understanding the social dimension of knowledge within practice. Only in this way can the unique profound connotations and ideological concepts of the social-dimension view of knowledge be accurately and deeply grasped. In this sense, focusing on the role of gender in knowledge production, the defensibility of anonymous collaborative knowledge production, strategies for resolving cognitive biases, and issues of knowledge definition raised by information science, among other contents, fully demonstrates from another angle the value and significance of applying the idea of the social dimension of knowledge to related practical problems.

规范性是理解社会认识论的基本立场，在此基础上还需要把握社会认识论的理论特征与实践考察。从前述的三种知识社会维度可以看出，当代社会认识论研究以几种不同的研究内容作为支撑，比如，富勒（Steve Fuller）的规范社会认识论、戈德曼的求真社会认识论、基彻尔（Philip Kitcher）的最小化社会认识论、建构主义社会认识论等。从理论特征这个视角来看，当代社会认识论研究既有保留传统研究方法和风格的哲学式研究，如戈德曼使用真理作为知识活动实践的目标，以促进真理的获得还是阻碍来评价知识活动和知识实践，同时也有20世纪末期兴起的社会建构论的社会学式的研究。这些研究凸显了传统认识论所忽略的社会利益、阶级压迫，主张这些就是知识社会维度的根源所在，并试图论证和辩护他们的理论诉求。当然，所有这些理论的共同之处就在于试图摒弃传统认识论的缺陷并试图将知识的社会维度引入其中，所不同的就在于论述这种知识社会维度的表现方式的差异。除理论特征的把握外，社会认识论研究的另一迷人之处还在于随着知识社会维度的逐步深入化剖析，有关它的实践问题变得愈发突出，正如马克思指出的那样，“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界，而问题在于改变世界”。社会认识论的研究强调了科学知识生产实践，在具体实践当中考察知识的社会维度，在实践之中理解知识的社会维度。只有这样，才能准确而深刻地把握住社会维度的知识观所独有的深刻内涵和思想理念。在这个意义上，围绕性别在知识生产中的作用、匿名合作生产知识的可辩护、认知偏见的解决策略、信息科学引发的知识界定问题等内容，就从另一角度充分展示了知识社会维度这一思想应用于相关实践问题中的价值与意义。

In the field of epistemology research, contextualist research is undoubtedly fitting. Professor Guo Guichun points out that “context connects the features of the external world reflected by words and texts with the essence of the world, especially issues of knowledge and truth.” [2]2 Guo Guichun, a Chinese philosopher of science and professor at Shanxi University; the quotation is from his work on contextualism. The social-dimension view of knowledge is also suitable for interpretation by contextual empiricism. According to this understanding, knowledge is knowledge with a social dimension, contextualized knowledge; the process of knowledge production is essentially a socialized cognitive process. Based on this cognitive principle, contextual empiricism is practically transformed into a kind of epistemological research, reflecting on the mode and efficacy of context’s role in knowledge generation. At the same time, using context as a link maintains a balance between the normativity and sociality of knowledge: on the one hand, preserving the normativity of scientific knowledge; on the other hand, expanding the sociality of scientific knowledge, indicating that the social dimension of scientific knowledge is necessary and urgent for the explanation of knowledge. In fact, the way out for contemporary epistemology research lies in its need to comprehensively view the intrinsic characteristics of knowledge—that is, it not only needs to retain the normative characteristics of traditional epistemology but also needs to actively absorb the intrinsic social characteristics of knowledge. Therefore, contextual interpretation helps to make a relatively accurate definition of the essence of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge.

在知识论研究领域中，语境论研究无疑是契合的。郭贵春教授指出，“语境将语词与文本所反映的外部世界的特征，跟世界的本质，尤其是知识和真理问题关联起来”。社会维度的知识观同样适合语境经验论的解释，按照这一理解，知识是具有社会维度的知识、是语境化的知识，知识的生产过程实质是一种社会化的认知过程。以这样的认识原则为基础，语境经验论就实际地转化为一种知识论研究，并对知识生成中的语境作用方式、效力进行了思考。同时，以语境为连接在知识的规范性和社会性之间保持一个平衡，一方面保留科学知识的规范性，另一方面扩大科学知识的社会性，指明科学知识的社会维度对于知识的解释是必要而迫切的。事实上，当代知识论研究的出路就在于它需要综合地看待知识的内在特征，即不仅需要保留传统认识论的规范特性，同时也需要积极地吸纳知识内在的社会特性。因此，语境解释有助于对知识特别是科学知识的本质做出较为准确的界定。

The Framework of the Historical Materialist View of Knowledge

历史唯物主义的知识观框架

Changes in the modern view of knowledge often trigger deeper theoretical innovations. Epistemological research needs to be positioned within the framework of the historical materialist view of knowledge. Whether it is positivism, interpretivism, critical theory, or pragmatism, all are positioned at the macro-cognitive level, and behind them lies a basic way of understanding the world. The social-dimension view of knowledge is likewise a deepening of the understanding of the essence of the world. Specifically, the value of the social-dimension view of knowledge lies in: first, outlining the developmental trends and evolutionary direction of epistemology. Second, deepening the value orientation and developmental motivations of epistemology. Third, revealing the free exchange and equal communication of ideas. The explosion of contemporary scientific knowledge has transformed the existing form of knowledge. Whether it is the production of scientific knowledge or its dissemination and operation, all of this involves the fundamental meaning and value orientation of social life. Therefore, turning the perspective of epistemology toward social life, linking the development of epistemology with social life and social practice, and using the core view of knowledge from the social dimension of knowledge to find new solutions and approaches, will be an important direction and developmental trend of epistemology for a long time to come. It is in this sense that, as Marx said: “The concrete totality, as a totality of thoughts, as a concrete thought-entity, is in fact a product of thinking, of conceiving; it is by no means a product of the self-evolving idea which thinks outside of and above intuition and representation, but rather of the working-up of intuition and representation into concepts. The whole, as it appears in the head as a thought-whole, is a product of the thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can, a way different from the artistic, religious, and practical-mental appropriation of the world. The real subject retains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before; as long as the head’s activity is merely speculative, merely theoretical. Hence, even in the theoretical method, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, “Introduction,” section on the method of political economy.

近代知识观的变革往往引发更深层次的理论革新，认识论的研究更需要定位在历史唯物主义的知识观框架之内，无论是实证主义、解释主义还是批判主义、实验主义，都是在宏观的认识层面下的定位，其背后展示出的是一种基本的理解世界的方式，而社会维度的知识观同样是对世界本质的理解的深化。具体而言，社会维度的知识观的价值就在于：其一，勾勒出认识论的发展趋势和演进方向。其二，深化了认识论的价值取向和发展动因。其三，揭示出思想的自由交换与平等交流。当代科学知识的大爆炸改变了既有的知识形态，无论是科学知识生产，还是科学知识传播、运行，所有这些都将涉及社会生活的根本意义和价值取向，因此将认识论的视野转向社会生活，将认识论的发展与社会生活、社会实践相关涉，运用知识社会维度的核心知识观找出新的求解方案和思路，就是未来很长时间内认识论的一个重要方向和发展趋势。正是在这个意义上，正如马克思所说：“整体，当它在头脑中作为思想整体而出现时，是思维着的头脑的产物，这个头脑用它所专有的方式掌握世界，而这种方式是不同于对于世界的艺术精神的、宗教精神的、实践精神的掌握的。实在主体仍然是在头脑之外保持着它的独立性；只要这个头脑还仅仅是思辨地、理论地活动着。因此，就是在理论方法上，主体，即社会，也必须始终作为前提浮现在表象面前。”

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗