英语论文网

criticism occurs within frameworks, and hence both depends upon and reinforces the framework. The question here is whether and to what degree, if at all, theories are formed by frameworks?

Ironically, it is Polanyi's theory of how science creates knowledge through the use of personal knowledge that provides an answer to that question. Science forms a distinctive culture with a distinctive framework that transcends Western culture. Science is an autonomous culture. So, those who want to break the barrier of the framework, need only to join the culture of science and thereby transcend ethnic cultures. However, as an autonomous culture with a distinctive framework, science again re-creates the barrier of the framework in the form of C. P. Snow's 'Two Cultures Problem.' Science is a distinctive culture which is not understood by literary people; and literary people form a distinctive culture which is not understood by scientists. So, have we returned to the original problem, if only in a slightly altered form? How can people, if at all, from different cultures (i.e. science as opposed to art) talk with one another?

I think the resolution to this problem of scientists and artists can talk with one another lies through seeing how Polanyi and Popper form complementary theories of scientific knowledge and the science culture.

Most ignore Polanyi, or mistakenly equate his views with T. S. Kuhn, who thinks that scientific revolution is the replacement of incommensurable paradigms. Science in a revolutionary state consists of competing paradigms or cultures each defined by their own paradigm where one culture becomes dominant-usually the paradigm of the younger generation. However, from the perspective of Polany's theory of tacit knowledge, the theory of paradigms is at best a partial description of how scientific knowledge is created. I think it is Polanyi's theory of the creation of scientific knowledge through the use of tacit knowledge which overcomes the limitations of frameworks. The framework or paradigm is an aspect of personal knowledge.

Many of the followers of Polanyi and Popper, mistakenly think that Polanyi's views are radically opposed to Popper's views. Though Polanyi's theory of tacit or personal knowledge is seen as opposed to Popper's theory of objective knowledge, Polanyi views objective knowledge and rational criticism as part of the explicit or articulate dimension of science which is guided by the tacit dimension. Hence, from the perspective of the tacit dimension, Popper's theory of objective knowledge is a description of how the explicit aspect of personal knowledge functions. However, I think that Polanyi mistakenly minimizes the role of objective knowledge in his explanation of scientific discovery. By fully explaining the function of objective knowledge and its relationship with tacit knowledge, I suggest that we will explain both how to break the barrier of the framework and how science creates knowledge.

My theory is that by integrating the views of Popper and Polanyi, we will produce a solution to the two cultures problem, in specific, and to the problem of cross-cultural understanding, in general. The easy part to this integration of Popper's and Polanyi's views is that both agree that it is not language but science which is the key to understanding thinking. All knowledge follows the pattern of scientific knowle