《结构》在历史研究中最明显的运用是对科学共同体的确认与考察。但是,科学史家们几乎并未真正从事这方面的工作,即便做了些许,那也决然不是一种典型库恩式的工作;库恩并不是一个真正的历史研究的引导者。从积极的视角来看,《结构》一书以及库恩的总体工作,在专业的科学哲学中已获得了惊人的合法性;库恩已成为科学哲学家标准的一部分。但仅就作为一门特定的学科而言,科学史与《结构》之间仅有一种令人怀疑的关系。《结构》开创了研究科学的某些可能的进路。如果没有《结构》的内在影响,20世纪80年代的革命,包括SSK和带有美式风格的文化研究,都是很难想象的。 The most obvious application of “structure” in historical research is the confirmation and investigation of the scientific community. However, almost no scientific historian has actually been involved in this work, and even if a little is done, that is certainly not a quintessential Kuhn-style work; Kuhn is not the guide of a true historical study. From a positive perspective, the book Structure and the overall work of Kuhn have gained phenomenal legitimacy in a professional philosophy of science; Kuhn has become part of the standards of science philosophers. But just as a specific subject, there is only one suspicious relationship between the history of science and “structure.” “Structure” opens up some of the possible paths to research science. Without the inherent influence of “structure,” the revolution of the 1980s, including SSK and cultural studies with American style, is hard to imagine.