Beyond Binaries: Dissolving the Empirical/Normative Divide.
Beyond Binaries: Dissolving the Empirical/Normative Divide.
复制标题
超越二元：消除经验/规范鸿沟。
DOI：
10.1080/23294515.2020.1722290
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Chan S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chan S
在生物伦理学中，规范方法和经验方法之间的对比通常与学科差异相一致：生物伦理学将自己定义为一种规范探究的形式，而经验方法传统上被视为主要是社会科学的工具（Chan和Coggon 2013）。在这种框架下，经验生命伦理学事业表现为一种“学科社会性”：我们可能会问，社会科学能为生命伦理学做些什么？或者，或许更公平地说，生命伦理学和社会科学一起能做些什么？然而，对生命伦理学和社会科学之间的关系提出问题这一事实本身就表明了两者之间的分离，这反过来又倾向于对规范和经验的二元思考。这样的二元性受制于不断的重新协商：在某种程度上，生命伦理学的“经验转向”与社会科学的“规范转向”是平行的，把我们带到一个学科、方法论和认识论交织在一起的地方，既被忽略，又受到挑战。从生命伦理学的角度来看，这促使我们问经验生命伦理学是否涉及将社会科学认识论引入生命伦理学工作，或者仅仅是经验方法在生命伦理学事业中的应用。经验生命伦理学方法明显多样化；他们的理论方法同样如此（Ives et al. 2018）；然而，如果我们引进经验方法而不采用社会科学的方法来研究理论和认识论，可能会错过什么？关于认识优先性的问题——经验证据是否可以作为规范性主张的证明，或者我们是否从规范性的不可知论立场出发，并允许经验工作推动我们的分析——
In bioethics, the contrast between normative and empirical approaches has commonly been aligned with disciplinary differences: bioethics defines itself as a form of normative inquiry, while empirical methods have traditionally been viewed as principally the tools of the social sciences (Chan and Coggon 2013). Framed in this way, the empirical bioethics enterprise appears as a form of “disciplinary sociality”: what can social science do for bioethics, we might ask; or, perhaps more equitably, what can bioethics and social science do together?The very fact of asking questions about the relationship between bioethics and social science, however, itself suggests a separation between the two, which in turn predisposes toward binary thinking about the normative and the empirical. Such a binary is subject to continuous re-negotiation: the “empirical turn” in bioethics has been paralleled to some extent by a “normative turn” in the social sciences, bringing us to a place where disciplinarity, methodology, and epistemology intertwine and are both elided and challenged. From a bioethical perspective, this prompts us to ask whether empirical bioethics involves importing social science epistemologies into bioethical work, or is merely the application of empirical methods in a bioethical cause. Empirical bioethics methodologies are notably diverse; their theoretical approaches equally if not more so (Ives et al. 2018); yet what might be missed, if we import empirical methods without also adopting a social scientific approach to theory and epistemology? Questions about epistemic priority–whether empirical evidence serves as justification for normative claims, or whether we start from an agnostic position with respect to normativity and allow the empirical work to drive our analysis–