论文部分内容阅读
在中国 ,历史科学之观念兴起于 2 0世纪初 ,大盛于“五四”以后。它原是西方近代科学和历史理论直接影响下的产物 ,但在具体理解和运作上 ,又有两种不同的路向 :一以自然科学为比照模式的“科学化” ;一以西方社会科学 (在当时主要是社会学和经济学 )为参照系数的“科学化”。此两种治学路向 ,蔚然已成现代中国史学之主流。而对此风气持保留态度的 ,则另有钟情于新人文主义的一派 ,其方法上倾向于以人文阐释与科学实证相结合的治史途径。上述三派对西方现代史学和中国传统史学俱各有所承 ,剖析其方法论的内涵结构与特点 ,是一件很有意义之事
In China, the notion of history science rose in the early 20th century and Dasheng came after the May 4th Movement. It was originally the product of the direct influence of Western modern science and history theory. However, in terms of understanding and operation, there are two different approaches: one is “scientifically” modeled on natural sciences; the other is on the basis of western social sciences At that time mainly sociology and economics) as the “scientific” reference coefficient. These two kinds of scholarship have become the mainstream of modern Chinese historiography. While maintaining a reserved attitude to this trend, there is another love for the new humanist faction, the method tends to humanistic interpretation and scientific evidence combined with the historical approach. All three of the above-mentioned factions have their own bearing on both the modern western historiography and the traditional Chinese historiography, and it is of great significance to analyze the connotation structure and characteristics of its methodology