ABSTRACT

The genre of controversy studies in Science & Technology Studies distinguishes between ‘internalist' and ‘interactional' controversies. Interactional controversy studies highlight that debates involving multiple stakeholders with competing interests often evade closure. Research on internalist controversies focuses on how a ‘core-set’ of experts manages to resolve arguments about knowledge claims. Yet, internalist controversies do not always reach closure; dissent may persist while scientific work continues. A controversy within the German research network AESToR has persisted for several years, with periodic outbreaks and without impinging on academic productivity. AESToR pioneers the aesthetics of religion in religious studies; members have debated how to relate cognitive with cultural approaches to the study of religion. Three analytical perspectives – paradigm clash, conflicting visions, and productivity – explain why controversy persists in AESToR. Controversy is fuelled by conflicting visions of connectivity, competence, and ethics. These visions are informed by and give rise to a clash between paradigms: Kulturwissenschaft and Naturwissenschaft. The controversy persists because there are conflicts between views about epistemology, morality, and the future of the aesthetics of religion. Moreover, keeping the controversy alive stimulates productivity in terms of academic output and epistemological pluralism. Rather than closing the debate, participants have a stake in keeping it going.

摘要

科学与技术研究中的争议研究类型区分了“内部主义”和“互动”争议。互动争议研究强调，涉及具有竞争利益的多个利益相关者的辩论通常会逃避结束。对内部主义争论的研究集中在专家的“核心集”如何设法解决关于知识主张的争论。然而，内在主义的争论并不总能结束。在科学工作继续进行的同时，异议可能会持续存在。德国研究网络 AESToR 内部的争议已经持续了好几年，周期性爆发并且没有影响学术生产力。AESToR开创了宗教研究中的宗教美学；成员们就如何将认知与文化方法联系到宗教研究中进行了辩论。范式冲突、相互冲突的愿景和生产力——解释为什么 AESToR 中存在争议。对连通性、能力和道德的相互冲突的愿景助长了争议。这些愿景受到范式的启发并引发了范式之间的冲突：Kulturwissenschaft和Naturwissenschaft。争论之所以持续，是因为关于认识论、道德和宗教美学的未来的观点之间存在冲突。此外，保持争议的存在可以刺激学术产出和认识论多元化方面的生产力。参与者与其结束辩论，不如说让辩论继续下去。