本刊这两期对科学作了多方面的历史探索,随之自然会对技术提出类似的问题。然而,可以论证,要讨论技术史,要求有更多的专家,涉及社会中更多的人和机构,还要调动相当多的经济力量。所以,看来还是仅限于科学为好,特别是因为我们的目的是展示科学史中可能存在的不同路线。虽然我们已简单提到处理这个题目的不同方法,并阐明了最近10年科学史研究无可争辩的活力,但对于我们的时代往往在造福于科学共同体的大规模工作上喜欢搞协作,或许没 This issue of these two phases of science made many historical exploration, followed by natural technology will pose a similar problem. However, it can be argued that there is a need to discuss the history of technology, require more experts, involve more people and institutions in society, and mobilize considerable economic power. So it seems that science is still better, especially since our goal is to show the different lines that may exist in the history of science. Although we have simply referred to the different ways of dealing with this subject and set forth the indisputable dynamism of the history of science in the last 10 years, we often like to collaborate with our age on large-scale work that benefits the scientific community. Perhaps