自二十世紀以降，政治研究領域上經常出現一些風靡一時的成對「主義」。這些前仆後繼的成對「主義」，是否意味「後浪推前浪，前浪毀在沙灘上」，還是意指「新瓶裝舊酒」呢？就經驗性的政治研究而言，在這些各領風騷的成對「主義」中，最引人矚目而值得一再深省的，莫過於行為主義與後行為主義之間的替換了。 某些政治學者指出，五、六十年代如日中天的行為主義，已隨著邏輯實證論的式微而消逝，代之而起的，乃是嶄新的後行為主義。然而，另外一些政治學者則甚不以為然。可是，儘管正、反雙方在爭論時都曾間接地訴諸邏輯實證論，但「一直沒有政治學者直接進行此一解析工作」，徒令行為主義、後行為主義、及邏輯實證論之間的理論關聯的斷言，淪為人云亦云的漫談。 筆者不揣譾漏，願就此一基礎課題，進行直接的解析工作。本文的剖析，將從維也納學派、明尼蘇達學派、行為主義、後行為主義等四種基本主張，逐一分別進行，希望能夠指出其中潛具的一些延續性見解。

　　　　　Begining in the 20[] century, the field of political study has gone through occasional upheavals during which competing 'isms' vie for supremacy. The proponents of any new view must, of course, argue that their program is superior. Is that just putting new wine in old bottles? For empirical political study, the issue of post-behavioralism being substituted for behavioralism has received much attention. some historians of political science tell us that behavioralism, which has its epistemological roots in logical positivism, has ended in a stalemate. The death of logical positivism entails the death of behavioralism. The idea of continuities in empirical political study around a shared credo has been rejected. According to these writers, we are now in a post-behavioral age, condemned to sit at separate tables. But they did not directly come to grips with the question of exactly how the claims of logical positivism related to behavioralism. What I purpose in this article is a view based on a search of the literature from Vienna School, Minnesota School, and behavioralism, to post-behavioralism, demonstrating that there is indeed some continuity between the four isms.