為解決人文科學於19世紀期間深陷的科學主義泥淖，高達美放棄追求科學方法，改以其哲學詮釋學重新闡述人文科學的真理及其存有方式。自此，「真理」與「方法」決裂，象徵著人文科學與自然科學的根本分歧。
但在前海德格詮釋學與哲學詮釋學間有一值得注意的顯著差異：前者仍相信作者意圖的重要性，詮釋的任務在於客觀理解之；而後者則認為詮釋是種由讀者與文本所敞開的辯證遊戲，作者已無關緊要，亦無客觀可言。正是在這一差異上，赫施以保衛作者為由，批判哲學詮釋學的相對主義傾向，並強調唯有回到以作者為目的自身的理解，才能開啟詮釋學理想中的對話。

一般而言，赫施的批評並未受到重視。時人大多視之為向方法論詮釋學的倒行逆施。正是在此背景下，本論文試圖重新爬梳這兩相扞格之詮釋理論的內容與脈絡，並以舒爾茨與波普的立場為切入點，指出潛藏在該爭論底下的歷史主義與科學態度之爭。而貫穿這三重爭論的，事實上是一個關於科學實作之規範原則的抉擇。由此我將嘗試性地主張，透過波普之猜想-反駁邏輯修正後的赫施詮釋學，更有被我們採納的理由。因為該詮釋學或許才能真正保全人文科學知識的多元、尊重與客觀有效性，並避免任何只為鞏固自身傳統或權威的風險發生。

To tackle the problem of the decline of human sciences against the rise of scientism in the 19th century, Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics proposed to forsake scientific methods in order to reclaim the truth and existing form of human sciences. Since then, truth and method have been considered to be in opposition to each other, which hints at a fundamental distinction between human and natural sciences.
Yet, there is a substantial difference exists between pre-Heidegger hermeneutics and philosophical hermeneutics. For pre-Heidegger hermeneutics, author’s intention still plays an important role and requires thus an objective textual interpretation. In contrast, philosophical hermeneutics considers interpretation merely as a dialectic game between readers and texts, and downplays thereby the significance of both the author and objective interpretation process. To defense the author’s status, E. D. Hirsch addressed this difference by criticizing the relativistic tendency of the philosophical hermeneutics and he argued that only an interpretation that was oriented toward authors could initiate a real hermeneutic dialogue.
The critique of Hirsch was frequently disregarded as reactive and as an untimely restoration of the methodological hermeneutics. In view of this methodic controversy, this paper reexamines the content and logic of the two opposing hermeneutic theories. Our reexamination would make reference to Gunter Scholtz and Karl Popper and it attempt to explore the problems of historicism and scientific attitudes hidden behind the debate. We would show that the debate is essentially related to a choice between the normative principles of scientific practices. And I would try to modify Hirsch’s hermeneutics through the logic of conjecture and refutation outlined by Popper. This modified hermeneutics could effectively sustain the pursuit of diversity, respect, and objective validity in the practice of human sciences and guard us against the danger of idiosyncratic, self-interested, or ideologically biased interpretation.

高達美主要著作（Hans-Georg Gadamer）

英文版

TM Truth and Method, Bloomsbury. 2013. Translated revised by Joel Weinsheimer & Donald G. Marshall

中文版

《真理與方法》第一卷。北京：商務，2013。洪漢鼎譯。
《真理與方法》第二卷。北京：商務，2013。洪漢鼎譯。

赫施主要著作 (Eric Dinald Hirsch)

英文版

VII Validity in interpretation, Yale University Press. 1967.
AI The Aims of Interpretation, The University of Chicago Press. 1976.

中文版

《解釋的有效性》，北京：三聯，1991。王勇才譯。

波普主要著作 (Karl Raimund Popper)

英文版
CR Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Basic Books. 1962.
OK Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford University Press. 1972.
LS The Logic of Scientific discovery, Routledge. 2002.
PH The Poverty of Historicism, Harper & Row. 1964.

中文版
《猜想與反駁》。上海：上海譯文，1986。傅季重、紀樹立、周昌忠、蔣弋為譯。
《客觀知識》。台北：結構群（發行），1989。程實定譯。
《科學發現的邏輯》。杭州：中國美術學院，2007。查汝強、邱仁宗、萬木春譯。
《歷史決定論的貧困》。北京：華夏出版社，1987。杜汝楫、邱仁宗譯。
《開放社會及其敵人》上冊。台北：桂冠圖書，1984。莊文瑞、李英明譯。
《開放社會及其敵人》下冊。台北：桂冠圖書，1984。莊文瑞、李英明譯。

中文二手文獻（按照字母、筆畫順序）

Aeschylus著，張熾恆譯，《希臘悲劇之父全集》第二冊，臺北市：書林，2008
David Edmonds & John Eidinow著，曾佳琦譯，《維根斯坦的撥火棒》，臺北市：
時報文化，2005
Felix Guirand主編，徐汝舟、史昆、李揚、孟尹、陳建憲、陳世丹譯，《世界神
話百科全書》，上海：上海文藝出版社，1992
Hans-Georg Gadamer & Jacques Derrida 等著，孫周興、孫善春等編譯，《德法之
爭：伽達默爾與德里達的對話》，北京：商務，2014
Jean Grondin著，洪漢鼎譯，《詮釋學真理？論伽達莫爾的真理概念》，北京：商
務，2015
Martin Heidegger著，陳映嘉、王慶節譯，《存在與時間》，北京：三聯，2014
P. D. Juhl著，吳啟之、願洪潔譯，《解釋：文學批評的哲學》，北京：文化藝術
出版社，1991
Paul Ricœur著，夏小燕譯，《從文本到行動》，上海：華東師範大學，2015
Richard E. Palmer著，潘德榮譯，《詮釋學》，北京：商務，2014
Stephen Davies著，韓振華、趙娟譯，《藝術諸定義》，南京：南京大學，2014
Steve Fuller著，翁昌黎譯，《孔恩vs.波普：爭奪科學之魂》，新北市：群學，
2013
Susan Sontag著，程巍譯，《反對闡釋》，上海：上海譯文，2011
William Cecil Dampier著，李珩譯，《科學史及其與哲學和宗教的關係》上冊，
北京：商務，1989
William Dampier著，李衍譯，《科學史及其與哲學和宗教的關係》上冊，北京：
商務，1989
史亮主編，《新批評》，四川：四川文藝，1989
成中英主編，《本體與詮釋：中西比較》第三輯，上海：上海社會科學院，2003
林靜伶，《語藝批評：理論與實踐》，台北市：五南圖書，2000
洪漢鼎主編，《理解與解釋：詮釋學經典文選》，北京：東方出版社，2001
洪漢鼎，《當代哲學詮釋學導論》，臺北市：五南圖書，2008
陳瑞麟，《科學哲學：理論與歷史》，臺北市：群學，2010
趙一凡等主編，《西方文論關鍵詞》，北京：外語教學與研究出版社，2006
劉悅笛，《英美分析美學史論》，臺北市：秀威資訊科技，2017
潘德榮，《西方詮釋學史》，臺北市：五南，2015

外文二手文獻（按照字母順序）

Aeschylus. 2012. Prometheus Bound. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett publishing
company. Translated by Deborah H. Roberts.
Apollodorus. 1921. The Library. Vol. 1. London: Heinemann. Translated by Sir James
George Frazer.
Bleicher, Josef. 1980. Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method,
Philosophy and Critique. London, Boston and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Dampier, William. 1948. A History of Science and Its Relations with Philosophy &
Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Diane P. Michelfelder & Richard E. Palmer (eds.). 1989. The Gadamer-Derrida
Encounter. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Eliot, Thomas Stearns.1921. The Sacred Wood: Essays on Poetry and Criticism. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Ferraris, Maurizio.1988. History of Hermeneutics. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Translated by Luca Somigli.
Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard. 2010. The Grand Design. New York:
Bantam Books.
Hesiod. 1914. HESIOD The Homeric Hymns and Homerica. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press. Translated by Hugh G. Evelyn-White.
Jasinski, James. 2001. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary
Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Cambridge University
Press. Translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood.
Kierkegaard, Søren Aabye. 1983. Fear and Trembling repetition. New Jersey: Princeton
University Press. Translated by Howard V. Hong & Edna H. Hong.
Ovid. 1958. The Metamorphoses. New York: The Viking press. Translated by Horace
Gregory.
Ricœur, Paul. 1991. From text to action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press. Translated by Kathleen Blamey & John B. Thompson.
Ricœur, Paul. 1973. “The Task of Hermeneutics”, Philosophy Today 17:2. pp. 112-128.
Ross, Sydney.2006. “Scientist: The story of a word, Annals of Science”, Annals of
Science 18:2. pp. 65-85.
Sontag, Susan. 1990. Against Interpretation. New York: Doubleday.
Wimsatt, W. K. & Beardsley, M. C. .1946. “The Intentional Fallacy”. The Sewanee
Review, 54:3. pp. 468-488
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2001. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London and New York:
Routledge. Translated by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuinness.
Zimmerman, J. E. 1983. Dictionary of classical Mythology. New York: Bantam Press.