科学史研究中修辞学进路的编史学考察
|
摘要
修辞学进路的科学史研究兴起于20世纪60、70年代,它从独特的修辞角度来重新解读科学文本,发掘了传统科学史中所忽略的科学话语中的修辞建构一面。自它产生、发展以来,受到越来越多来自科学史界、科学哲学界的关注,并且成为了科学史研究中一条新颖而突出的进路。本论文基于科学编史学的角度对这一进路进行考察,提出其具体研究方式和对科学史观念的理论影响两方面的编史特征,为理解修辞学进路的科学史研究,以及在未来的科学史研究中如何借鉴这一新进路提供了一个研究基础。本论文主要从以下几个方面展开。
首先,考察了修辞概念和科学观两方面理论的演变和融合过程,从中获得修辞学进入科学史研究的理论基础。继而在将修辞学进路的科学史与其他类似的科学文本研究的比较中,总结出修辞学进路的科学史的概念界定。
第二,通过对目前庞杂的一阶研究的考察,依据研究者理论背景、科学文本对象、研究方法和理论旨趣等几个方面,将修辞学进路的科学史划分为宏观的建制研究、中观的社会研究和微观的策略研究三种主要形态。并且分别通过案例分析的方式具体分析这三种形态各自不同的特征。总结了每种形态带来的新的编史方法,以及在研究切入点、理论来源等方面对科技史的借鉴意义。
第三,考察了修辞学进路的科学史案例中各自论述的结论所集中探讨的主题以及它们对于科学史、STS的观念影响。认为目前的研究主要论述了科学史中修辞的交流性、发明性和认识论功能,揭示了修辞贯穿于科学全过程、成为科学话语不可避免的特征。基于这些结论,认为修辞学进路的科学史引入了新的编史观念,也推动了STS领域对于科学话语、科学观的重新认识。
最后,对修辞学进路的科学史目前在学界产生的主要的争议和问题进行了集中的梳理,并且从本论文的立场出发进行了解释和回应。这一研究促进了对修辞学进路的科学史的反思以及在具体的编史学问题上的不断发展。
Rising in 1960s~1970s, rhetoric approach in history of science rereads scientific texts and reveals the rhetorical construction in scientific discourse which was ignored in the traditional studies from the unique perspective. It has been attracting more and more attention from scholars of history and philosophy of science since rhetoric approach was introduced into the study of history of science and then it kept on developing. And it is deemed to be a novel and outstanding approach now. This dissertation concludes the historiographical characteristics of the specific methods and the theoretical influence on the view of science from the angle of historiography study of rhetoric approach in history of science. It offers a model for the future study of history of science to understand the approach and refer to.
Firstly, the evolution of the concept of rhetoric and the view of science in rhetoric and STS is studied separately from the historical dimension. In this way, the theoretical foundation of cross study of the two is built up. By comparison of rhetoric approach in history of science with other similar scientific text studies, the concept of rhetoric approach of history of science is clearly defined.
Secondly, according to background of the scholars, scientific texts, the methods and the purports of study, the studies of history of science in rhetoric approach is divided into macroscopic study of scientific organizational system, middle level study of social element, and microcosmic study of rhetorical strategy. The particular differences among three kinds of models are explained in case studies. The classification and intensive study of rhetoric approach offer references for historiography of science on aspects of new historiography methods, research basis, theory resource, etc.
Thirdly, the themes of and the influences on STS are systemized from the scattered theoretical conclusions in the cases of history of science in rhetoric approach. The dissertation mostly argues the current studies discusses the communicational, inventive and epistemological aspects of rhetoric in science, which indicates rhetoric spreads in the whole process of science and is inevitably the essential element of scientific discourse. Based on these points, the historical studies of science in rhetoric approach promote the cognitions of scientific discourse and science itself.
Finally, the debates and problems about the rhetoric approach in history of science are analyzed, and further interpreted and responded. By that means, this approach is deeply reflected and more importantly, rhetoric approach in history of science is impelled to develop in concrete aspect.
首先,考察了修辞概念和科学观两方面理论的演变和融合过程,从中获得修辞学进入科学史研究的理论基础。继而在将修辞学进路的科学史与其他类似的科学文本研究的比较中,总结出修辞学进路的科学史的概念界定。
第二,通过对目前庞杂的一阶研究的考察,依据研究者理论背景、科学文本对象、研究方法和理论旨趣等几个方面,将修辞学进路的科学史划分为宏观的建制研究、中观的社会研究和微观的策略研究三种主要形态。并且分别通过案例分析的方式具体分析这三种形态各自不同的特征。总结了每种形态带来的新的编史方法,以及在研究切入点、理论来源等方面对科技史的借鉴意义。
第三,考察了修辞学进路的科学史案例中各自论述的结论所集中探讨的主题以及它们对于科学史、STS的观念影响。认为目前的研究主要论述了科学史中修辞的交流性、发明性和认识论功能,揭示了修辞贯穿于科学全过程、成为科学话语不可避免的特征。基于这些结论,认为修辞学进路的科学史引入了新的编史观念,也推动了STS领域对于科学话语、科学观的重新认识。
最后,对修辞学进路的科学史目前在学界产生的主要的争议和问题进行了集中的梳理,并且从本论文的立场出发进行了解释和回应。这一研究促进了对修辞学进路的科学史的反思以及在具体的编史学问题上的不断发展。
Rising in 1960s~1970s, rhetoric approach in history of science rereads scientific texts and reveals the rhetorical construction in scientific discourse which was ignored in the traditional studies from the unique perspective. It has been attracting more and more attention from scholars of history and philosophy of science since rhetoric approach was introduced into the study of history of science and then it kept on developing. And it is deemed to be a novel and outstanding approach now. This dissertation concludes the historiographical characteristics of the specific methods and the theoretical influence on the view of science from the angle of historiography study of rhetoric approach in history of science. It offers a model for the future study of history of science to understand the approach and refer to.
Firstly, the evolution of the concept of rhetoric and the view of science in rhetoric and STS is studied separately from the historical dimension. In this way, the theoretical foundation of cross study of the two is built up. By comparison of rhetoric approach in history of science with other similar scientific text studies, the concept of rhetoric approach of history of science is clearly defined.
Secondly, according to background of the scholars, scientific texts, the methods and the purports of study, the studies of history of science in rhetoric approach is divided into macroscopic study of scientific organizational system, middle level study of social element, and microcosmic study of rhetorical strategy. The particular differences among three kinds of models are explained in case studies. The classification and intensive study of rhetoric approach offer references for historiography of science on aspects of new historiography methods, research basis, theory resource, etc.
Thirdly, the themes of and the influences on STS are systemized from the scattered theoretical conclusions in the cases of history of science in rhetoric approach. The dissertation mostly argues the current studies discusses the communicational, inventive and epistemological aspects of rhetoric in science, which indicates rhetoric spreads in the whole process of science and is inevitably the essential element of scientific discourse. Based on these points, the historical studies of science in rhetoric approach promote the cognitions of scientific discourse and science itself.
Finally, the debates and problems about the rhetoric approach in history of science are analyzed, and further interpreted and responded. By that means, this approach is deeply reflected and more importantly, rhetoric approach in history of science is impelled to develop in concrete aspect.
引文
Austin J L. 2002. How to do things with words.北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
Barnes B. 1982. T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bazerman C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Research Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman C. 1989. Introduction: Rhetoricians on the Rhetoric of Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14:3-6.
Bazerman C. 1997. Reporting the Experiment: The Changing Account of Scientific Doings in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.1665-1800 // Harris R A, ed. The Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 169-186.
Bitzer L F, Black E. 1971. The Prospect of Rhetoric; report of the national developmental project. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Black E. 1967. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Briggs J C. 1989. Francis Bacon and the Rhetoric of Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Broman T H. 1991. J. C. Reil and the“Journalization”of Physiology // Dear P, ed. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 13-42.
Brooke J H. 1987. Reviewed Work: John A. Schuster, Richard R. Yeo. The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies. Isis, 78(1): 93-94.
Brown R H. 1987. Reason as Rhetorical: on Relations among Epistemology, discourse and Practice // Nelson J S, Megill A, McCloskey D N, eds. The Rhetoric of the Human Science: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs. Madison. WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 184-197.
Brummett B. 2000. Reading Rhetorical Theory. Philadelphia: Harcourt College Publishers.
Burke K. 1967. Rhetoric---Old and New // Martin Steinmann. New Rhetorics. New York: Scribners, 59-76.
Burke K. 1969. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke K. 1973. The Philosophy of Literary Forms: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Campbell G. 1963. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Campbell J. 1975. The Polemical Mr. Darwin. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61:375-390.
Campbell J. 1987. Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of science // Nelson J, Megill A, McCloskey D eds., The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 69-86.
Campbell J. 1997a. Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of science // Harris R A, ed. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 3-18.
Campbell J. 1997b. Strategic Reading: Rhetoric, Invention, and Interpretation // Gross A G, William M. Keith, eds. 1997. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 113-137
Cantor G. 1988. Reviewed Work: John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, Donald N. McCloskey, eds. The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs. Isis, 79(4): 698-699.
Chattopadhyyaya D P. 1990. Anthropology and Historiography of Science. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Chaim Perelman. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise of Argumentation. Wilkinson J, Weaver P, trans. Nortre Dame: University of Nortre Dame Press.
Cherwitz R A, Hikins J W. 1986. Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology. Columbia S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Christie J R R, Golinski J V. 1982. The Spreading of the Word: New Directions in the Historiography of Chemistry 1600-1800. Cambridge, UK: History of Science, 20(4): 235-266.
Coward H R, Franklin J J. 1989. Identifying the Science-Technology Interface: Matching Patent Data to a Bibliometric Model Science. Technology & Human Values, 14:50-77.
Culler D. 1968. The Darwinian Revolution and Literary Form // Levine G, Madden W, eds. The Art of Victorian Prose. New York: Oxford University Press, 224-246.
Darwin C. 1967. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First. New York: Athenum. Dear P. 1985. Totius in Verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society. Isis, 76(2): 144-161.
Dear P. 1991. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ehninger D. 1972. Contemporary Rhetoric: A Reader’s Course book Glenview. IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Eldredge N, Gould S J. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism // Schopf T J M. Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Co, 83-115.
Fahnestock J. 1989. Arguing in Different Forums: The Bering Crossover Controversy Science.Technology & Human Values, 14: 26-42.
Feldhay R. 1991. Producing Sunspots on an Iron Pan: Galileo’s Scientific Discourse // Krips H, McGuire J E, eds. Science, Reason and Rhetoric. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 119-144.
Fuller S. 1989. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and its Discontents. Boulder: Westview Press.
Fuller S. 1992. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fuller S. 1997.“Rhetoric of Science”: Double the Trouble? // Gross A G, William M. Keith, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 279-298.
Galison P. 1987. How Experiments Ends. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Gaonkar D Parameshwar. 1997. The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science // Gross A G, Keith W M., eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 25-88.
Gavroglu K, Christianidis J, Nicolaidis E, eds. 1994. Trends in the Historiography of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gilbert G N, Mulkay M. 1984. Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Godin B. 1997. The Rhetoric of a Health Technology: the Microprocessor Patient Card. New York: Social Studies of Science, 27(6): 865-902.
Golinski J. 1998. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grand H. E. L. 1986. Steady as a Rock: Methodology and Moving Continents // John A. Schuster, Yeo R. R., eds. The politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 97-136.
Gregg R B. 1984. Symbolic Inducement and Knowing: A study in the Foundations of Rhetoric. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Gross A G. 1988. Discourse on the Method: The Rhetoric Analysis of Scientific. Texts Pretext. (9) :169-86.
Gross A G. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gross A G. 1991. Rhetoric of Science without Constraint. Rhetorica. (9): 283-299
Gross A G, William M. Keith. 1997. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press.
Gruber H E. 1981. Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Habermas J. 1970. Toward A Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hacking. 1994. Styles of Scientific Thinking or Reasoning: A New Analytical Tool for Historians and Philosophers of the Sciences // Gavroglu K, Christianidis J, Nicolaidis E, eds. 1994.
Trends in the Historiography of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 31-48.
Hahn R. 1971. The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: The Paris Academy of Science, 1666-1803. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hanaway O. 1975. The chemists and the word: The didactic origins of chmistry. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harris R A. 1991. Rhetoric of Science. College English, 53(3): 282-307.
Harris R A. 1997. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Harvey B. 1981. Plausibility and the Evaluation of Knowledge: A Case Study of Experimental Quantum Mechanics. Social Studies of Science, 11(1): 95-130.
Hesse M B. 1963. Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward. Krips H. 1995. Science, Reason and Rhetoric. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hoffer E. 1979. Before the Sabbath. New York: Harper and Row.
Holmes F L. 1974. Claude Bernard and Animal Chemistry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Holmes F L. 1987. Lavoisier and the Chemistry of Life. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Holmes F L. 1991. Argument and Narrative in Scientific Writing // Dear P. The literary structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Press, 164-181.
Hyman S. 1962. The Tangled Bank: Darwin, Marx, Frazer and Freud as Imaginative Writers. NY: Atheneum.
Lambright W H. 1994. The political construction of space satellite technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(1): 47-69.
Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leff M. 1997. The Idea of Rhetoric as Interpretive Practice: A Humanist’s Response to Gaonkar // Gross A G, Keith W M, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 25-88.
Locke D M. 1992. Science as Writing. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lunsford A A, Ede L S. 1994. On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric // Enos T, Brown S C, eds. Professing the New Rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 397-411.
Lyne J R. 1980. Rhetoric and Semiotic in C. S. Peirce. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66:155-168.
Lyne J R. 1982. C. S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Rhetoric // Brian Vickers. Rhetoric Re-Valued. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 267-276.
Lyne J, Howe H F. 1994. Punctuated Equilibria: Rhetorical Dynamics of a scientific Controversy // Harris R A. The Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 69-86.
Lyne J. 1999. Reviewed Work: Alan G. Gross. The Rhetoric of Science. Isis, 90(3): 638-639.
Mamiani M. 1991. The Rhetoric of Certainty: Newton’s Method in Science and in the Interpretation of the Apocalypse // Pera M, Shea W R, eds. Persuading Science: The Art of scientific Rhetoric. New York: Science History Publications, 157-172.
McCullough J. 1989. First Comprehensive Survey of NSF Applicants Focuses on Their Concerns About Proposal Review. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(1): 78-88.
Macdonald S, Silverstone R. 1992. Science on Display: the Representation of Science Controversy in Museum Exhibitions. Public Understanding of Science, 1 (1): 69-87.
McKeon R. 1994. The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts // Theresa Enos, Stuart C. Brown, eds. Professing the New Rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 126-44.
McCloskey D. 1997. Big Rhetoric, Little Rhetoric: Gaonkar on the Rhetoric of Science // Gross A G, Keith W M, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 101-112.
McMullin E. 1991. Rhetoric and Theory Choice in Science // Pera M, Shea W R. Persuading Science: The Art of scientific Rhetoric. New York: Science History Publications. 55-76.
Melia T. 1992. Reviewed Works: Peter Dear. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Alan G. Gross. The Rhetoric of Science. Greg Myers. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Lawrence J. Prelli. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Isis, 83(1): 100-106.
Michalos A C. 1987. Reviewed Work: J. A. Schuster, R. R. Yeo. The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method. Philosophy of Science, 54(3): 486.
Miller C R. 1989. The Rhetoric of Decision Science, or Herbert A. Simon Says Science, Technology & Human Values. 14: 43-46.
Miller C R. 1997. Classical Rhetoric without Nostalgia: A Response to Gaonkar // Gross A G, William M. Keith, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press. 156-171.
Moss J D. 1993. Novelties in the Heavens: Rhetoric and Science in the Copernican Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nichol M H. 1963. What are Historians Doing That may well be Supplemented by the Work of Rhetoricians?. Rhetoric and criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press.
Overington M A. 1977. The Scientific Community as Audience: Towards a Rhetorical Analysis of Science. Pennsylvania: Philosophy and Rhetoric, (10): 143-164.
Pera M, Shea W R. 1991. Persuading Science: The Art of scientific Rhetoric. New York: Science History Publications.
Perelman C. 1979. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Pinch T J. 1980. Theoreticians and the Production of Experimental Anomaly: The Case of Solar Neutrinos // Knorr W R, Krohn R, Whitley R P, eds. Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Springer, 92-102.
Plato. 1961. The Collected Dialogues of Plato Theaitetios 184c. E. Hamilton and H. Cairns. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Prelli L J. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: the University of South Carolina Press.
Prelli L J. 1997. The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos // Harris R A, ed. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 87-106.
Quintilianus M F. 1856. Quintilian's institutes of oratory. Watson J S, trans. London : Henry G. Bohn.
Robert L. 1991. Setting the Table: The Disciplinary Development of Eighteenth-Century Chemistry as Read Through the Changing Structure of Its Tables // Dear P. The Literary Studies of Scientific Argument. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 99-132.
Rorty R. 1987. Science as solidarity // Nelson J S, Megill A, McCloskey D N, eds. The Rhetoric of the Human Science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 38-52.
Rosner L. 1991. Eighteenth-Century Medical Education and the Didactic Model of Experiment // Dear P. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 182-194.
Rousseau G. S. 1967. Reviewed Work: William Powell Jones. The Rhetoric of Science: A Study of Scientific Ideas and Imagery in Eighteenth-Century English Poetry. Isis, 58(3): 427-429.
Sapp J. 1986. Insider the Cell: Genetic Methodology and the Case of the Cytoplasm // John A. Schuster, Yeo R. R., eds. The politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 167-202.
Scott R L. 1967. On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic. Central States Speech Journal, 18:9-16.
Scott R L. 1976. On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later. Central States Speech Journal, 27: 258-266.
Scott R L. 1994. Rhetoric as Epistemic: What Difference Does That Make? // Enos T, Brown S C., eds. 1994. Defining the New Rhetorics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 120-136.
Schuster J. 1986. Cartesian Method as Mythic Speech: A Diachronic and Structural Analysis//
Schuster J A, Yeo R R, eds. The politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical
Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 33-96.
Schuster J A. 1986. The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical studies.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Searle J R. 1969. Seech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapin, Steven. 1982. History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions. History of Science, 20(3): 157-211.
Shapin S., Thackray A W. 1974. Prosopography as a Research Tool in History of Science: The British Scientific Community 1700-1900. History of Science, (12): 1-28.
Shapin S. 1984. Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology. Social Studies of Science, 14:481-520.
Shapin S, Schaffer S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Simon H W. 1990. The Rhetoric Turn:Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stephens J. 1975a. Rhetorical Problems in Renaissance Science. Philosophy and Rhetoric, (8): 213-229.
Stephens J. 1975b. Francis Bacon and the Style of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Toulmin S. 1958. The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin S. 1990. Science and the Many Faces of Rhetoric. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.
Waddell C. 1989. Reasonableness Versus Rationality in the Construction and Justification of Science Policy Decisions: The Case of the Cambridge Experimentation Review Board Science. Technology & Human Values, 14(1): 7-25.
Waddell C. 1997. The Role of Pathos in the Decision-Making Process: A Study in the Rhetoric of Science Policy // Harris R A, ed. 1997. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 127-150.
Weaver R M. 1970. Language is Sermonic: Rhichard M. Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric. Johannesen R L, Strickland R, Eubanks R T, trans. Baton Rouge: Louisana State University Press.
Weaver R. 1997. Dielectic and Rhetoric at Dayton, Tennessee // Harris R A, ed. 1997. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 107-126.
Weimer W B. 1977. Science as A Rhetorical Transaction: Toward a Nonjustificational Conception of Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10:1-29.
Woolgar S. 1989. What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric for? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(1): 47-49.
Young R. 1986. M. Darwin’s Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziman J. 1968. Public Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.
阿佩尔. 1997.哲学的改造.孙周兴、陆兴华译.上海:上海译文出版社.
马尔科姆·阿什莫尔,格雷格·迈尔斯,乔纳森·波特. 2004.话语、修辞学与反思性//希
拉·贾撒诺夫,杰拉尔德·马克尔,詹姆斯·彼得森,特雷弗·平奇.科学技术论手册.北京:北京理工大学出版社.
安军,郭贵春. 2005.科学隐喻的本质.科学技术与辩证法, (3): 42-47.
巴恩斯. 2001.科学知识与社会学理论.鲁旭东,译.北京:东方出版社.
贝尔纳. 1983.历史上的科学.伍况甫等,译.北京:科学出版社.
伯恩斯坦. 1992.超越客观主义和相对主义.北京:光明日报出版社.
柏拉图. 2002-2003.柏拉图全集.王晓朝译.北京:人民出版社.
蔡曙山. 2006.论符号学三分法对语言哲学和语言逻辑的影响.北京大学学报, 43(3): 50-58.
陈嘉映. 2003.语言哲学.北京:北京大学出版社.
陈燕丽. 2005.科学修辞学方法探析. [硕士学位论文],上海:华东师范大学.
成素梅,李宏强. 2004.析佩拉的科学修辞方法.哲学动态, (10): 17-22.
大卫·宁等. 1998.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法.常昌富,顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
布鲁尔. 2002.知识和社会意象.艾彦,译.北京:东方出版社.
董宏乐. 2005.科学语篇的隐喻性.上海:复旦大学出版社.
伽达默尔. 1999.真理与方法.洪汉鼎,译.上海:上海译文出版社.
伽达默尔. 2004.哲学解释学.夏镇平,宋建平,译.上海:上海译文出版社.
郭贵春. 1994.“科学修辞学转向”及其意义.自然辩证法研究. 10(12): 13-19.
郭贵春,殷杰. 2000.在“转向”中运动—20世纪科学哲学的演变及其走向.哲学动态. (8): 29-32.
郭贵春. 2000.科学修辞学的本质特征.哲学研究. (7): 19-26.
郭贵春. 2002.语境与后现代科学哲学的发展.北京:科学出版社.
郭贵春,贺天平等. 2006.现代西方语用哲学研究.北京:科学出版社.
郭贵春. 2007.隐喻、修辞与科学解释.北京:科学出版社.
哈贝马斯. 1989.交往与社会进化.张博树,译.重庆:重庆出版社.
哈贝马斯. 2001.后形而上学思想.曹卫东,付德根,译.南京:译文出版社.
赫尔奇·克拉夫. 2005.科学史学导论.任定成,译.北京:北京大学出版社.
胡曙中. 1999.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
江晓原. 2000.科学史外史研究初论—主要以天文学史为例.自然辩证法通讯, 22(2): 65-71.
克兰. 1988.无形学院—知识在科学共同体的扩散.刘珺珺,顾昕,王德禄,译.北京:华夏出版社.
柯瓦雷. 1991.科学思想史研究方向与规划.孙永平,译.自然辩证法研究,(12) : 63-65.
肯尼斯·博克等. 1998.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.常昌富,顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
库恩. 2003.科学革命的结构.金吾伦,胡新和,译.北京:北京大学出版社.
拉图尔,伍尔加. 2004.实验室生活:科学事实的建构过程.张伯霖,刁小英,译.北京:东方出版社.
拉图尔. 2005.科学在行动:怎样在社会中跟随科学家和工程师.刘文旋,郑开,译.北京:东方出版社.
劳斯. 2004.知识与权力——走向科学的政治哲学.盛晓明,邱慧,孟强,译.北京:北京大学出版社.
李洪强. 2004.析佩拉的科学修辞学战略. [硕士学位论文].太原:山西大学.
李洪强,成素梅. 2006.论科学修辞语境中的辩证理性.科学技术与辩证法,23 (4): 41-73.
李洪强,成素梅. 2007.论科学中的实用论证.科学技术与辩证法, 24(4): 40-43.
李小博. 2004.科学修辞学研究. [博士学位论文].太原:山西大学.
李小博,朱丽君. 2005.科学交流中的修辞学.北京:科学学研究, 23(4): 433-438.
李小博,郭贵春. 2004a.科学修辞学与“解释学转向”.自然辩证法通讯, 26(2): 25-30.
李小博,郭贵春. 2004b.科学修辞学的方法论意义.科学技术与辩证法, 21(1): 47-52.
李小博,郭贵春. 2003.科学修辞学的认识论意义.自然辩证法研究, 19(4): 9-13.
李醒民. 2002.科学编史学的“四维空时”及其“张力”.自然辩证法通讯, (3), 64-71.
刘兵. 1996.克丽奥眼中的科学.济南:山东教育出版社.
刘凤朝. 1993.科学编史学的思想源流与现代走向.自然辩证法研究, (12): 31-35.
刘凤朝. 1995. 20世纪的科学编史学:文化背景和思想脉络.科学技术与辩证法, (1): 40-43.
刘凤朝. 2003.历史主义学派对科学编史学的贡献.自然辩证法通讯, (2): 63-66.
刘珺珺. 1990.科学社会学.上海:上海人民出版社.
刘晓力. 2004a.建构科学知识社会学的与境分析.求是学刊, (6): 56-60.
刘晓力. 2004b.科学知识社会学的集体认识论和社会认识论.哲学研究, (11): 61-66.
勒高夫,等,编. 1989.新史学.姚蒙,编译.上海:上海译文出版社.
卢卫红. 2007.科学史研究中人类学进路的编史学考察. [博士学位论文],北京:清华大学.
罗蒂. 2003.哲学与自然之镜.李幼蒸,译.北京:商务印书馆.
马尔凯. 2006.科学社会学理论与方法.北京:商务印书馆.
马尔凯. 2007.词语与世界—社会学分析形式的探索.李永梅,译.北京:商务印书馆.
迈尔斯. 1999.书写生物学:科学知识的社会建构文本.孙雍君,译.南昌:江西教育出版社.
麦克洛斯基,尼尔逊,梅基尔. 2000.学问寻绎的措辞学.黄德兴,译.社会科学的措辞.北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店.
梅森. 1980.自然科学史.周煦良,等,译.上海:上海译文出版社.
默顿. 2000.十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会.范岱年,等,译.北京:商务印书馆.
默顿. 2003.科学社会学.北京:商务印书馆.
默顿. 2004.科学社会学散忆.鲁旭东,译.北京:商务印书馆.
莫里斯·内坦森. 1998.修辞的范围//肯尼斯·博克.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 200-210.
佩拉. 2006.科学之话语.成素梅,李洪强,译.上海:上海科技教育出版社.
齐曼. 2002.真科学.曾国屏等,译.上海:上海科技教育出版社.
齐曼. 2003.可靠的知识——对科学信仰中原因的探索.赵振江,译.北京:商务印书馆.
任军. 2004.科学编史学的科学哲学与历史哲学问题.社会科学管理与评论, (4): 24-31.
塞蒂纳. 2001.制造知识—建构主义与科学的与境性.王善博,等,译.北京:东方出版社.
塞尔. 2001.心灵、语言和社会.上海:上海译文出版社. 2001.
盛晓明. 2000.话语规则与知识基础—语用学维度.上海:学林出版社.
理查德·什尔维兹. 1998.修辞的“认知性”:对“新修辞”运动认知论的淡化//肯尼斯·博
克.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 171-183.
斯泰特拉. 2000.麦克洛斯基经济学的措辞的措辞//麦克洛斯基,尼尔逊,梅基尔. 2000.
学问寻绎的措辞学.黄德兴,译.社会科学的措辞.北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店, 156-183.
谭笑,刘兵. 2007.公众理解科学的修辞学分析.自然辩证法通讯, 29(2): 44-48.
维特根斯坦. 2002.哲学研究.李步楼,译.北京:商务出版社.
温科学. 2006. 20世纪西方修辞学理论研究.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
韦斯特福尔. 2000.近代科学的建构:机械论与力学.彭万华,译.上海:复旦大学出版社.
吴国盛. 1994.走向科学思想史研究.自然辩证法研究, (2): 10-15.
吴国盛. 2005.科学史的意义.中国科技史杂志, (1): 59-64.
西塞罗. 2003.论演说家.王焕生,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社.
夏平,西蒙·谢弗. 2008.利维坦与空气泵:霍布斯、玻意耳与实验室生活.蔡佩君,译.上海:世纪出版集团.
肖显静. 2006.科学哲学研究三大转向的内涵和意义.科学技术与辩证法, 23(2): 52-56.
叶舒宪. 2001.地方性知识.读书, (5): 121-125.
殷杰. 2003.论“语用学转向”及其意义.中国社会科学, (3): 53-64.
袁江洋. 1996.科学史:走向新的综合.自然辩证法通讯, (1): 52-55.
袁江洋. 1997.科学史编史思想的发展线索—兼论科学编史学学术结构.自然辩证法研究,(12): 34-41.
袁江洋. 2003.科学史的向度.武汉:湖北教育出版社.
章梅芳. 2006.女性主义科学史的编史学考察. [博士论文],北京:清华大学人文社会科学学院.
张沛. 2004.隐喻的生命.北京:北京大学出版社.
赵万里. 2002a.科学的社会建构:科学知识社会学的理论与实践.天津:天津人民出版社.
赵万里. 2002b.建构主义与科学社会史.南开大学法政学院学术论丛(下).(2): 99-109.
中国修辞学会. 1992.迈向21世纪的修辞学研究.广州:广东人民出版社.
Barnes B. 1982. T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bazerman C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Research Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman C. 1989. Introduction: Rhetoricians on the Rhetoric of Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14:3-6.
Bazerman C. 1997. Reporting the Experiment: The Changing Account of Scientific Doings in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.1665-1800 // Harris R A, ed. The Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 169-186.
Bitzer L F, Black E. 1971. The Prospect of Rhetoric; report of the national developmental project. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Black E. 1967. Rhetorical Criticism: A Study in Method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Briggs J C. 1989. Francis Bacon and the Rhetoric of Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Broman T H. 1991. J. C. Reil and the“Journalization”of Physiology // Dear P, ed. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 13-42.
Brooke J H. 1987. Reviewed Work: John A. Schuster, Richard R. Yeo. The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies. Isis, 78(1): 93-94.
Brown R H. 1987. Reason as Rhetorical: on Relations among Epistemology, discourse and Practice // Nelson J S, Megill A, McCloskey D N, eds. The Rhetoric of the Human Science: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs. Madison. WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 184-197.
Brummett B. 2000. Reading Rhetorical Theory. Philadelphia: Harcourt College Publishers.
Burke K. 1967. Rhetoric---Old and New // Martin Steinmann. New Rhetorics. New York: Scribners, 59-76.
Burke K. 1969. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burke K. 1973. The Philosophy of Literary Forms: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Campbell G. 1963. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Campbell J. 1975. The Polemical Mr. Darwin. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61:375-390.
Campbell J. 1987. Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of science // Nelson J, Megill A, McCloskey D eds., The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 69-86.
Campbell J. 1997a. Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of science // Harris R A, ed. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 3-18.
Campbell J. 1997b. Strategic Reading: Rhetoric, Invention, and Interpretation // Gross A G, William M. Keith, eds. 1997. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 113-137
Cantor G. 1988. Reviewed Work: John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, Donald N. McCloskey, eds. The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences: Language and Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs. Isis, 79(4): 698-699.
Chattopadhyyaya D P. 1990. Anthropology and Historiography of Science. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Chaim Perelman. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise of Argumentation. Wilkinson J, Weaver P, trans. Nortre Dame: University of Nortre Dame Press.
Cherwitz R A, Hikins J W. 1986. Communication and Knowledge: An Investigation in Rhetorical Epistemology. Columbia S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Christie J R R, Golinski J V. 1982. The Spreading of the Word: New Directions in the Historiography of Chemistry 1600-1800. Cambridge, UK: History of Science, 20(4): 235-266.
Coward H R, Franklin J J. 1989. Identifying the Science-Technology Interface: Matching Patent Data to a Bibliometric Model Science. Technology & Human Values, 14:50-77.
Culler D. 1968. The Darwinian Revolution and Literary Form // Levine G, Madden W, eds. The Art of Victorian Prose. New York: Oxford University Press, 224-246.
Darwin C. 1967. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First. New York: Athenum. Dear P. 1985. Totius in Verba: Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society. Isis, 76(2): 144-161.
Dear P. 1991. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ehninger D. 1972. Contemporary Rhetoric: A Reader’s Course book Glenview. IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Eldredge N, Gould S J. 1972. Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism // Schopf T J M. Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper and Co, 83-115.
Fahnestock J. 1989. Arguing in Different Forums: The Bering Crossover Controversy Science.Technology & Human Values, 14: 26-42.
Feldhay R. 1991. Producing Sunspots on an Iron Pan: Galileo’s Scientific Discourse // Krips H, McGuire J E, eds. Science, Reason and Rhetoric. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 119-144.
Fuller S. 1989. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and its Discontents. Boulder: Westview Press.
Fuller S. 1992. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Fuller S. 1997.“Rhetoric of Science”: Double the Trouble? // Gross A G, William M. Keith, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 279-298.
Galison P. 1987. How Experiments Ends. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Gaonkar D Parameshwar. 1997. The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science // Gross A G, Keith W M., eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 25-88.
Gavroglu K, Christianidis J, Nicolaidis E, eds. 1994. Trends in the Historiography of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gilbert G N, Mulkay M. 1984. Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Godin B. 1997. The Rhetoric of a Health Technology: the Microprocessor Patient Card. New York: Social Studies of Science, 27(6): 865-902.
Golinski J. 1998. Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grand H. E. L. 1986. Steady as a Rock: Methodology and Moving Continents // John A. Schuster, Yeo R. R., eds. The politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 97-136.
Gregg R B. 1984. Symbolic Inducement and Knowing: A study in the Foundations of Rhetoric. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press.
Gross A G. 1988. Discourse on the Method: The Rhetoric Analysis of Scientific. Texts Pretext. (9) :169-86.
Gross A G. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gross A G. 1991. Rhetoric of Science without Constraint. Rhetorica. (9): 283-299
Gross A G, William M. Keith. 1997. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press.
Gruber H E. 1981. Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Habermas J. 1970. Toward A Rational Society: Student Protest, Science and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hacking. 1994. Styles of Scientific Thinking or Reasoning: A New Analytical Tool for Historians and Philosophers of the Sciences // Gavroglu K, Christianidis J, Nicolaidis E, eds. 1994.
Trends in the Historiography of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 31-48.
Hahn R. 1971. The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: The Paris Academy of Science, 1666-1803. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hanaway O. 1975. The chemists and the word: The didactic origins of chmistry. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harris R A. 1991. Rhetoric of Science. College English, 53(3): 282-307.
Harris R A. 1997. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Harvey B. 1981. Plausibility and the Evaluation of Knowledge: A Case Study of Experimental Quantum Mechanics. Social Studies of Science, 11(1): 95-130.
Hesse M B. 1963. Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward. Krips H. 1995. Science, Reason and Rhetoric. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hoffer E. 1979. Before the Sabbath. New York: Harper and Row.
Holmes F L. 1974. Claude Bernard and Animal Chemistry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Holmes F L. 1987. Lavoisier and the Chemistry of Life. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Holmes F L. 1991. Argument and Narrative in Scientific Writing // Dear P. The literary structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Press, 164-181.
Hyman S. 1962. The Tangled Bank: Darwin, Marx, Frazer and Freud as Imaginative Writers. NY: Atheneum.
Lambright W H. 1994. The political construction of space satellite technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19(1): 47-69.
Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leff M. 1997. The Idea of Rhetoric as Interpretive Practice: A Humanist’s Response to Gaonkar // Gross A G, Keith W M, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 25-88.
Locke D M. 1992. Science as Writing. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lunsford A A, Ede L S. 1994. On Distinctions between Classical and Modern Rhetoric // Enos T, Brown S C, eds. Professing the New Rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 397-411.
Lyne J R. 1980. Rhetoric and Semiotic in C. S. Peirce. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66:155-168.
Lyne J R. 1982. C. S. Peirce’s Philosophy of Rhetoric // Brian Vickers. Rhetoric Re-Valued. Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 267-276.
Lyne J, Howe H F. 1994. Punctuated Equilibria: Rhetorical Dynamics of a scientific Controversy // Harris R A. The Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 69-86.
Lyne J. 1999. Reviewed Work: Alan G. Gross. The Rhetoric of Science. Isis, 90(3): 638-639.
Mamiani M. 1991. The Rhetoric of Certainty: Newton’s Method in Science and in the Interpretation of the Apocalypse // Pera M, Shea W R, eds. Persuading Science: The Art of scientific Rhetoric. New York: Science History Publications, 157-172.
McCullough J. 1989. First Comprehensive Survey of NSF Applicants Focuses on Their Concerns About Proposal Review. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(1): 78-88.
Macdonald S, Silverstone R. 1992. Science on Display: the Representation of Science Controversy in Museum Exhibitions. Public Understanding of Science, 1 (1): 69-87.
McKeon R. 1994. The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts // Theresa Enos, Stuart C. Brown, eds. Professing the New Rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 126-44.
McCloskey D. 1997. Big Rhetoric, Little Rhetoric: Gaonkar on the Rhetoric of Science // Gross A G, Keith W M, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press, 101-112.
McMullin E. 1991. Rhetoric and Theory Choice in Science // Pera M, Shea W R. Persuading Science: The Art of scientific Rhetoric. New York: Science History Publications. 55-76.
Melia T. 1992. Reviewed Works: Peter Dear. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Alan G. Gross. The Rhetoric of Science. Greg Myers. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Lawrence J. Prelli. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Isis, 83(1): 100-106.
Michalos A C. 1987. Reviewed Work: J. A. Schuster, R. R. Yeo. The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method. Philosophy of Science, 54(3): 486.
Miller C R. 1989. The Rhetoric of Decision Science, or Herbert A. Simon Says Science, Technology & Human Values. 14: 43-46.
Miller C R. 1997. Classical Rhetoric without Nostalgia: A Response to Gaonkar // Gross A G, William M. Keith, eds. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. New York: State University of New York Press. 156-171.
Moss J D. 1993. Novelties in the Heavens: Rhetoric and Science in the Copernican Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nichol M H. 1963. What are Historians Doing That may well be Supplemented by the Work of Rhetoricians?. Rhetoric and criticism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana University Press.
Overington M A. 1977. The Scientific Community as Audience: Towards a Rhetorical Analysis of Science. Pennsylvania: Philosophy and Rhetoric, (10): 143-164.
Pera M, Shea W R. 1991. Persuading Science: The Art of scientific Rhetoric. New York: Science History Publications.
Perelman C. 1979. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Applications. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Pinch T J. 1980. Theoreticians and the Production of Experimental Anomaly: The Case of Solar Neutrinos // Knorr W R, Krohn R, Whitley R P, eds. Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Springer, 92-102.
Plato. 1961. The Collected Dialogues of Plato Theaitetios 184c. E. Hamilton and H. Cairns. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Prelli L J. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: the University of South Carolina Press.
Prelli L J. 1997. The Rhetorical Construction of Scientific Ethos // Harris R A, ed. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 87-106.
Quintilianus M F. 1856. Quintilian's institutes of oratory. Watson J S, trans. London : Henry G. Bohn.
Robert L. 1991. Setting the Table: The Disciplinary Development of Eighteenth-Century Chemistry as Read Through the Changing Structure of Its Tables // Dear P. The Literary Studies of Scientific Argument. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 99-132.
Rorty R. 1987. Science as solidarity // Nelson J S, Megill A, McCloskey D N, eds. The Rhetoric of the Human Science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 38-52.
Rosner L. 1991. Eighteenth-Century Medical Education and the Didactic Model of Experiment // Dear P. The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 182-194.
Rousseau G. S. 1967. Reviewed Work: William Powell Jones. The Rhetoric of Science: A Study of Scientific Ideas and Imagery in Eighteenth-Century English Poetry. Isis, 58(3): 427-429.
Sapp J. 1986. Insider the Cell: Genetic Methodology and the Case of the Cytoplasm // John A. Schuster, Yeo R. R., eds. The politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 167-202.
Scott R L. 1967. On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic. Central States Speech Journal, 18:9-16.
Scott R L. 1976. On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later. Central States Speech Journal, 27: 258-266.
Scott R L. 1994. Rhetoric as Epistemic: What Difference Does That Make? // Enos T, Brown S C., eds. 1994. Defining the New Rhetorics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 120-136.
Schuster J. 1986. Cartesian Method as Mythic Speech: A Diachronic and Structural Analysis//
Schuster J A, Yeo R R, eds. The politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical
Studies. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 33-96.
Schuster J A. 1986. The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method: Historical studies.. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Searle J R. 1969. Seech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapin, Steven. 1982. History of Science and Its Sociological Reconstructions. History of Science, 20(3): 157-211.
Shapin S., Thackray A W. 1974. Prosopography as a Research Tool in History of Science: The British Scientific Community 1700-1900. History of Science, (12): 1-28.
Shapin S. 1984. Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology. Social Studies of Science, 14:481-520.
Shapin S, Schaffer S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Simon H W. 1990. The Rhetoric Turn:Invention and Persuasion in the Conduct of Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stephens J. 1975a. Rhetorical Problems in Renaissance Science. Philosophy and Rhetoric, (8): 213-229.
Stephens J. 1975b. Francis Bacon and the Style of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Toulmin S. 1958. The Use of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin S. 1990. Science and the Many Faces of Rhetoric. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.
Waddell C. 1989. Reasonableness Versus Rationality in the Construction and Justification of Science Policy Decisions: The Case of the Cambridge Experimentation Review Board Science. Technology & Human Values, 14(1): 7-25.
Waddell C. 1997. The Role of Pathos in the Decision-Making Process: A Study in the Rhetoric of Science Policy // Harris R A, ed. 1997. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 127-150.
Weaver R M. 1970. Language is Sermonic: Rhichard M. Weaver on the Nature of Rhetoric. Johannesen R L, Strickland R, Eubanks R T, trans. Baton Rouge: Louisana State University Press.
Weaver R. 1997. Dielectic and Rhetoric at Dayton, Tennessee // Harris R A, ed. 1997. Landmark Essays on the Rhetoric of Science. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 107-126.
Weimer W B. 1977. Science as A Rhetorical Transaction: Toward a Nonjustificational Conception of Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10:1-29.
Woolgar S. 1989. What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric for? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science. Science, Technology & Human Values, 14(1): 47-49.
Young R. 1986. M. Darwin’s Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ziman J. 1968. Public Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press.
阿佩尔. 1997.哲学的改造.孙周兴、陆兴华译.上海:上海译文出版社.
马尔科姆·阿什莫尔,格雷格·迈尔斯,乔纳森·波特. 2004.话语、修辞学与反思性//希
拉·贾撒诺夫,杰拉尔德·马克尔,詹姆斯·彼得森,特雷弗·平奇.科学技术论手册.北京:北京理工大学出版社.
安军,郭贵春. 2005.科学隐喻的本质.科学技术与辩证法, (3): 42-47.
巴恩斯. 2001.科学知识与社会学理论.鲁旭东,译.北京:东方出版社.
贝尔纳. 1983.历史上的科学.伍况甫等,译.北京:科学出版社.
伯恩斯坦. 1992.超越客观主义和相对主义.北京:光明日报出版社.
柏拉图. 2002-2003.柏拉图全集.王晓朝译.北京:人民出版社.
蔡曙山. 2006.论符号学三分法对语言哲学和语言逻辑的影响.北京大学学报, 43(3): 50-58.
陈嘉映. 2003.语言哲学.北京:北京大学出版社.
陈燕丽. 2005.科学修辞学方法探析. [硕士学位论文],上海:华东师范大学.
成素梅,李宏强. 2004.析佩拉的科学修辞方法.哲学动态, (10): 17-22.
大卫·宁等. 1998.当代西方修辞学:批评模式与方法.常昌富,顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
布鲁尔. 2002.知识和社会意象.艾彦,译.北京:东方出版社.
董宏乐. 2005.科学语篇的隐喻性.上海:复旦大学出版社.
伽达默尔. 1999.真理与方法.洪汉鼎,译.上海:上海译文出版社.
伽达默尔. 2004.哲学解释学.夏镇平,宋建平,译.上海:上海译文出版社.
郭贵春. 1994.“科学修辞学转向”及其意义.自然辩证法研究. 10(12): 13-19.
郭贵春,殷杰. 2000.在“转向”中运动—20世纪科学哲学的演变及其走向.哲学动态. (8): 29-32.
郭贵春. 2000.科学修辞学的本质特征.哲学研究. (7): 19-26.
郭贵春. 2002.语境与后现代科学哲学的发展.北京:科学出版社.
郭贵春,贺天平等. 2006.现代西方语用哲学研究.北京:科学出版社.
郭贵春. 2007.隐喻、修辞与科学解释.北京:科学出版社.
哈贝马斯. 1989.交往与社会进化.张博树,译.重庆:重庆出版社.
哈贝马斯. 2001.后形而上学思想.曹卫东,付德根,译.南京:译文出版社.
赫尔奇·克拉夫. 2005.科学史学导论.任定成,译.北京:北京大学出版社.
胡曙中. 1999.美国新修辞学研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社.
江晓原. 2000.科学史外史研究初论—主要以天文学史为例.自然辩证法通讯, 22(2): 65-71.
克兰. 1988.无形学院—知识在科学共同体的扩散.刘珺珺,顾昕,王德禄,译.北京:华夏出版社.
柯瓦雷. 1991.科学思想史研究方向与规划.孙永平,译.自然辩证法研究,(12) : 63-65.
肯尼斯·博克等. 1998.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.常昌富,顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
库恩. 2003.科学革命的结构.金吾伦,胡新和,译.北京:北京大学出版社.
拉图尔,伍尔加. 2004.实验室生活:科学事实的建构过程.张伯霖,刁小英,译.北京:东方出版社.
拉图尔. 2005.科学在行动:怎样在社会中跟随科学家和工程师.刘文旋,郑开,译.北京:东方出版社.
劳斯. 2004.知识与权力——走向科学的政治哲学.盛晓明,邱慧,孟强,译.北京:北京大学出版社.
李洪强. 2004.析佩拉的科学修辞学战略. [硕士学位论文].太原:山西大学.
李洪强,成素梅. 2006.论科学修辞语境中的辩证理性.科学技术与辩证法,23 (4): 41-73.
李洪强,成素梅. 2007.论科学中的实用论证.科学技术与辩证法, 24(4): 40-43.
李小博. 2004.科学修辞学研究. [博士学位论文].太原:山西大学.
李小博,朱丽君. 2005.科学交流中的修辞学.北京:科学学研究, 23(4): 433-438.
李小博,郭贵春. 2004a.科学修辞学与“解释学转向”.自然辩证法通讯, 26(2): 25-30.
李小博,郭贵春. 2004b.科学修辞学的方法论意义.科学技术与辩证法, 21(1): 47-52.
李小博,郭贵春. 2003.科学修辞学的认识论意义.自然辩证法研究, 19(4): 9-13.
李醒民. 2002.科学编史学的“四维空时”及其“张力”.自然辩证法通讯, (3), 64-71.
刘兵. 1996.克丽奥眼中的科学.济南:山东教育出版社.
刘凤朝. 1993.科学编史学的思想源流与现代走向.自然辩证法研究, (12): 31-35.
刘凤朝. 1995. 20世纪的科学编史学:文化背景和思想脉络.科学技术与辩证法, (1): 40-43.
刘凤朝. 2003.历史主义学派对科学编史学的贡献.自然辩证法通讯, (2): 63-66.
刘珺珺. 1990.科学社会学.上海:上海人民出版社.
刘晓力. 2004a.建构科学知识社会学的与境分析.求是学刊, (6): 56-60.
刘晓力. 2004b.科学知识社会学的集体认识论和社会认识论.哲学研究, (11): 61-66.
勒高夫,等,编. 1989.新史学.姚蒙,编译.上海:上海译文出版社.
卢卫红. 2007.科学史研究中人类学进路的编史学考察. [博士学位论文],北京:清华大学.
罗蒂. 2003.哲学与自然之镜.李幼蒸,译.北京:商务印书馆.
马尔凯. 2006.科学社会学理论与方法.北京:商务印书馆.
马尔凯. 2007.词语与世界—社会学分析形式的探索.李永梅,译.北京:商务印书馆.
迈尔斯. 1999.书写生物学:科学知识的社会建构文本.孙雍君,译.南昌:江西教育出版社.
麦克洛斯基,尼尔逊,梅基尔. 2000.学问寻绎的措辞学.黄德兴,译.社会科学的措辞.北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店.
梅森. 1980.自然科学史.周煦良,等,译.上海:上海译文出版社.
默顿. 2000.十七世纪英格兰的科学、技术与社会.范岱年,等,译.北京:商务印书馆.
默顿. 2003.科学社会学.北京:商务印书馆.
默顿. 2004.科学社会学散忆.鲁旭东,译.北京:商务印书馆.
莫里斯·内坦森. 1998.修辞的范围//肯尼斯·博克.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 200-210.
佩拉. 2006.科学之话语.成素梅,李洪强,译.上海:上海科技教育出版社.
齐曼. 2002.真科学.曾国屏等,译.上海:上海科技教育出版社.
齐曼. 2003.可靠的知识——对科学信仰中原因的探索.赵振江,译.北京:商务印书馆.
任军. 2004.科学编史学的科学哲学与历史哲学问题.社会科学管理与评论, (4): 24-31.
塞蒂纳. 2001.制造知识—建构主义与科学的与境性.王善博,等,译.北京:东方出版社.
塞尔. 2001.心灵、语言和社会.上海:上海译文出版社. 2001.
盛晓明. 2000.话语规则与知识基础—语用学维度.上海:学林出版社.
理查德·什尔维兹. 1998.修辞的“认知性”:对“新修辞”运动认知论的淡化//肯尼斯·博
克.当代西方修辞学:演讲与话语批评.顾宝桐,译.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 171-183.
斯泰特拉. 2000.麦克洛斯基经济学的措辞的措辞//麦克洛斯基,尼尔逊,梅基尔. 2000.
学问寻绎的措辞学.黄德兴,译.社会科学的措辞.北京:生活、读书、新知三联书店, 156-183.
谭笑,刘兵. 2007.公众理解科学的修辞学分析.自然辩证法通讯, 29(2): 44-48.
维特根斯坦. 2002.哲学研究.李步楼,译.北京:商务出版社.
温科学. 2006. 20世纪西方修辞学理论研究.北京:中国社会科学出版社.
韦斯特福尔. 2000.近代科学的建构:机械论与力学.彭万华,译.上海:复旦大学出版社.
吴国盛. 1994.走向科学思想史研究.自然辩证法研究, (2): 10-15.
吴国盛. 2005.科学史的意义.中国科技史杂志, (1): 59-64.
西塞罗. 2003.论演说家.王焕生,译.北京:中国政法大学出版社.
夏平,西蒙·谢弗. 2008.利维坦与空气泵:霍布斯、玻意耳与实验室生活.蔡佩君,译.上海:世纪出版集团.
肖显静. 2006.科学哲学研究三大转向的内涵和意义.科学技术与辩证法, 23(2): 52-56.
叶舒宪. 2001.地方性知识.读书, (5): 121-125.
殷杰. 2003.论“语用学转向”及其意义.中国社会科学, (3): 53-64.
袁江洋. 1996.科学史:走向新的综合.自然辩证法通讯, (1): 52-55.
袁江洋. 1997.科学史编史思想的发展线索—兼论科学编史学学术结构.自然辩证法研究,(12): 34-41.
袁江洋. 2003.科学史的向度.武汉:湖北教育出版社.
章梅芳. 2006.女性主义科学史的编史学考察. [博士论文],北京:清华大学人文社会科学学院.
张沛. 2004.隐喻的生命.北京:北京大学出版社.
赵万里. 2002a.科学的社会建构:科学知识社会学的理论与实践.天津:天津人民出版社.
赵万里. 2002b.建构主义与科学社会史.南开大学法政学院学术论丛(下).(2): 99-109.
中国修辞学会. 1992.迈向21世纪的修辞学研究.广州:广东人民出版社.