板塊如何就位：戰後臺灣地質科學的知識流通與場域生成 (1950-1985)

Abstract

板塊構造學說 (Theory of Plate Tectonics) 如何在臺灣成為一件不證自明的科學事實？根據常見的科學史敘事，該學說係於1968-70年間的北美與歐洲完成、散播成一個普世性的地質科學理論，因此臺灣可被視為這個全球地球科學革命的地方個案。然而本研究試圖勾勒出一套替代性敘事：板塊構造學說在臺灣的穩固，是戰後臺灣地質科學知識與地質科學場域共同生產的結果。本研究奠基於戰後臺灣相關史料、科學知識的溝通／流通觀點 (scientific knowledge as a form of communication / circulation) 與科學場域觀點 (scientific field)，將敘事與分析架構劃為三個階段：1950年至1956年間，地質科學實作主要服膺於政府官僚場域的運作邏輯，因此在知識流通形式上以地質資源調查與陸域石油探勘為主，少有理論研究的施展空間；1957年到1968年間，隨著中國地質學會、台大海洋所等學術機構的設立，臺灣地質科學場域初具雛形，馬廷英與阮維周的科學資本／科學權威競逐反映了地質科學場域的專業化過程，並催生了新興理論研究與學科領域；到了1969年至1985年間，地質科學場域取得相對自主性的過程交織於海域石油探勘活動與地槽學說相關論戰，終使臺灣的板塊構造學說版本從立基於不同科學資本的百家爭鳴收斂為弧陸碰撞的薄皮造山模型，該模型也成為板塊構造學說達致普世性理論地位的要素之一。板塊在臺灣的「就位」，亦標誌著臺灣島作為地質理論研究與地質治理焦點的「誕生」。

How could the Theory of Plate Tectonics become a scientific truth in Taiwan? The prevalent narrative suggests that the theory was formulated by some extraordinary geologists in North America and Europe between 1968 and 1970, and was thereafter disseminated throughout the world. Taiwan is thus viewed as a local manifestation of a global scientific revolution. This study seeks to provide an alternative narrative: the consolidation of Theory of Plate Tectonics in postwar Taiwan was co-produced by the circulation of geological knowledge and struggles for scientific capitals in the “geological field”. This study adopts the approaches of “scientific field” and “scientific knowledge as a form of communication/circulation”, and divides its narrative into three parts: first, from 1950 to 1956, geological practices were dominated by the logic of “bureaucratic field”, in which resource surveys and oil explorations were emphasized while theoretical concerns were downplayed; secondly, with the establishment of institutions such as the Geological Society of China (1957) and Institute of Oceanography in NTU (1968), a geological field gradually took shape, while the struggle for scientific capitals/scientific authorities between Ting-Ying Ma (馬廷英) and Viechow Juan (阮維周) both reflected the professionalization of the geological field and gave rise to new subdisciplines and theoretical research; thirdly, intertwined with offshore oil prospecting and the Geosyncline-Plate Tectonics Debate, the geological field achieved its relative autonomy between 1969 and 1985, putting an end to the Plate Tectonics Controversy and made the theory a universal truth. In conclusion, I argue that the Theory of Plate Tectonics also facilitated the emergence of “Taiwan Island” as an important focus in geological research and governance.