Gerovitch Slava
Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology.
Sci Context. 2002 Jun;15(2):339-374. doi: 10.1017/s0269889702000479.
This article reinterprets the debate between orthodox followers of the Pavlovian reflex theory and Soviet "cybernetic physiologists" in the 1950s and 60s as a clash of opposing man-machine metaphors. While both sides accused each other of "mechanistic," reductionist methodology, they did not see anything "mechanistic" about their own central metaphors: the telephone switchboard metaphor for nervous activity (the Pavlovians), and the analogies between the human brain and a computer (the cyberneticians). I argue that the scientific utility of machine analogies was closely intertwined with their philosophical and political meanings and that new interpretations of these metaphors emerged as a result of political conflicts and a realignment of forces within the scientific community and in society at large. I suggest that the constant travel of man-machine analogies, back and forth between physiology and technology has blurred the traditional categories of the "mechanistic" and the "organic" in Soviet neurophysiology, as perhaps in the history of physiology in general.
本文将20世纪50年代和60年代巴甫洛夫反射理论的正统追随者与苏联“控制论生理学家”之间的争论重新诠释为两种对立的人机隐喻之间的冲突。尽管双方都指责对方采用了“机械论”的还原论方法,但他们并未意识到自己的核心隐喻有任何“机械论”的成分:巴甫洛夫学派将神经活动比作电话总机,而控制论者则将人类大脑与计算机进行类比。我认为,机器类比的科学效用与其哲学和政治意义紧密相连,这些隐喻的新解释是政治冲突以及科学界和整个社会力量重新调整的结果。我认为,人机类比在生理学和技术之间不断往复,模糊了苏联神经生理学中“机械论”和“有机论”的传统范畴,或许在生理学的总体历史中也是如此。