本文在梳理伊恩•哈金（Ian Hacking）的新实验主义思想的基础上，分析了汉斯•拉德（Hans Radder）以及约瑟夫•劳斯（Joseph Rouse）对新实验主义哲学的发展，同时对他们的实验哲学观点进行了简单的比较。哈金是新实验主义的先驱。他批判了逻辑实证主义的“实验与理论严格二分”的观点，驳斥了后经验主义的“观察总是负载着理论”的观点，主张“实验有其自己的生命”，并认为实验能够创造现象。他认为科学不是表征的，而是介入的；区分了理论实在论和实体实在论，并主张实验实在论。拉德沿着传统科学哲学的分析进路，试图纠正新实验主义的一些过激观点。他系统分析了实验的概念，并认为实验包括物质实现和理论解释两个基本方面；同时论证了实验是与理论紧密相连的，不能因强调实验而忽视理论的作用。通过实验的可重复产生以及对理论和技术的标准化，在地方性情境中产生的知识可以呈现出非地方的模式。实验的物质实现蕴含着对世界的介入与操控，这种介入意味着权力，而权力导致知识的产生，因此知识与权力之间存在着内在的关联。劳斯在解释学进路下，对实验进行了深层次的探讨。他试图扳正“理论优位”的科学哲学，发展了“实践优位”的科学实践哲学。在科学实践哲学的视野下，劳斯重构了实验、理论及自然的概念。他认为理论是一种模型，理论化是话语实践的一部分；理论与实验同属于实践，它们有各自的自主性，却又紧密相连。同时，劳斯认为自然是经过实践介入的自然，对象及现象都是实践干涉的结果，因此自然中内含着规范性。他认为关于对象及现象的知识具有地方性，知识与权力有内在的联系，权力产生知识，知识就是权力。拉德与劳斯分别从分析进路和解释学进路拓展新实验主义思想，虽然进路不同，但是他们聚焦的问题域以及达到的哲学结果却有着惊人的相似之处。他们均反对“理论优位”的科学观，强调实验的自主性及其对世界的物质介入作用，论证了这种介入性操控与规范性和权力都有着密切的关系；并且论证了知识具有地方性特征，而且知识与权力密切相关。两人的观点给人异曲同工或殊途同归的感觉。

This paper summarizes the background of the new experimentalism, briefly introduces its development, analyses the development of the philosophy of experimentation by Hans Radder and Joseph Rouse on the base of Ian Hacking’s new experimentalism thought, and draws a comparison between their philosophical points.Hacking is a forerunner of the new experimentalism. He criticizes the point of view “strictly divide experiment from theory” argued by logical empiricists, refutes postempiricists’ slogan “all observation statements are theory-loaded”. He claims “experimentation has a life of its own”, argues that experimentation has autonomy. He emphasizes on the inferential role of experimentation, claims that experimentation creates phenomena, protests science as intervention rather than representation. Hacking distinguishes between realism about theories and realism about entities, and holds experimental realism. He claims that engineering, not theorizing, is the best proof of scientific realism about postulated entities.On criticizing the traditional philosophy of science along the traditional philosophy of science analytical approach, Radder tries to adjust some excessive viewpoints on the new experimentalism. On systematically analyzing the concepts of experimentation, he reckons experimentation consists of two basic aspects which are material realization and theoretical description. In his view, experimentation is tightly related to theory, neither of them should be ignored. Through the reproduction of experimentation and the standardization of theory and technology, knowledge produced in local context could have non-local pattern. The material realization of experimentation includes the intervening and manipulating the world, which means power, and power results to knowledge. Hence some intrinsic connection lies between knowledge and power.Rouse discusses the experimental practices more deeply with the help of practical hermeneutic approach. He wants to rewrite the theory-dominated philosophy of science, and tries to develop practice-dominated philosophy of science. In his philosophy of scientific practices, Rouse reconstructs the concepts of experimentation, theory, and nature. Rouse regards a theory as a kind of model, and theorizing as a part of discursive practices. Both theory and experimentation are attributed to practices. They can have their own autonomy, and they are closely connected to each other. Moreover, Rouse considers that nature is practically intervening, objects and phenomena are the result of practical intervention. Normativity is implicit in nature. Knowledge about objects and phenomena is always in local context. There is intrinsic connection between this kind of knowledge and power. It is power that produces knowledge，and knowledge is a kind of power.Radder and Rouse separately develops the new experimentalism thought from analytical approach and hermeneutic approach. They both object the view that considers science as theory-dominated. We can not ignore the role of theory to experiment when we emphasize the autonomy of experiment. They both insist the material intervention role of experiment to the world, and recognize this intervening manipulation is connected with normativity and power. They admit that knowledge origins from local context, and knowledge is closely connected with power. Though coming from different approaches, the problems they focus on and the philosophical results they reach manifest amazing similarity.