论文部分内容阅读
邓小平同志关于“科学技术是第一生产力”的论断,在新的历史条件下丰富了马克思主义的唯物史观,因而在学术界产生了极大反响,引起了热烈的讨论。科学技术是第一生产力已成为学术界的共识。但对如何理解和运用这一命题,学术界存在着不同的认识。本文就迄今见诸各报刊杂志的部分学术文章和有关报道加以整理,综述如下。一、关于“科学技术是第一生产力”的理论内涵这方面讨论集中干下列三点上:1.“科学技术”概念的外延。2.科学技术是不是直接生产力?3.对“第一”如何理解? 1.如何确立“科学技术”一词的外延?一种观点认为只包括自然科学和工程技术,目前很多人仍直接或隐含地采用这个定义。但也有相当多的同志认为管理科学与决策科学(有人称“软科学”,其范围更广、更模糊一些)亦应包含在“科学技术”之内,也是第一生产力。更进一步,有人提出社会科学也要包含在内。钱学森认为“在我国目前,社会科学比自
Comrade Deng Xiaoping’s thesis that science and technology is the primary productive force enriches Marxist historical materialism under the new historical conditions and thus has aroused great repercussions in academia and aroused heated discussions. Science and technology are primary productive forces has become the consensus of academia. However, there are different understandings on how to understand and use this proposition. This article reviews some of the scholarly articles and related reports of newspapers and magazines so far summarized. I. The Theoretical Connotation of “Science and Technology Are the Primary Productive Forces” This discussion focused on the following three points: 1. The extension of the concept of “science and technology”. 2. Science and technology is not the direct productivity? 3. How to understand the “first”? 1. How to establish the extension of the term “science and technology”? A view that only includes natural science and engineering, many people are still directly or Implicitly adopt this definition. However, quite a few comrades also consider that the management science and decision-making science (some have called “soft science”, its scope broader and more vague) should also be included in “science and technology” as well as the primary productive force. Further, it was suggested that social sciences should also be included. Qian Xuesen believes that "in our country, social science is better than self