Galileo's Claim to Fame: The Proof that the Earth Moves From the Evidence of the Tides

1970 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. R. J. Shea
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Physical Reality ◽  
Actual Process ◽  
Thought Processes ◽  
Success Story ◽  
World Picture ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Earth ◽  
History Of

Until fairly recently a common way of doing history of science was to pick up an important strand of contemporary scientific thought and to trace its origin back to the philosophical tangle of the scientific revolution. This approach conveniently by-passed the breakdowns of once useful and pervasive theories, and neglected the long intellectual journeys along devious routes. History of science read like a success story; the pioneers who failed were neither dismissed nor excused; they were simply ignored. The historian knew what he was hunting for and he was careful to limit his search to areas where his quarry was sure to be found. This method, which has been dubbed the precursor-view, stands in contrast—albeit, not in opposition—to the contextual method, which aims at a better understanding of the actual thought-processes of the early scientists. On this second view, history of science must not only account for present theories in the light of past developments, it must also assess old theories in terms of the scientist's conceptual framework, and judge them against the background of the world picture of his age. This may lead the historian down the blind alleys of the past, chasing spurious attempts at explaining the nature of physical reality, but it can clear the ground for a less anachronistic interpretation of the emergence of modern science and the actual process of discovery. History of science acts as a winnowing fork, but we cannot suppose that the discoverer himself always separated the wheat from the chaff, and we must be ever wary of equating the dream with the task.

Reframing the Sciences of the Long Eighteenth Century

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 58-66
Author(s):  
Giuliano Pancaldi
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Half Century ◽  
The Past ◽  
Past Half Century ◽  
History Of ◽  
Long Eighteenth Century ◽  
Past Half

Here I survey a sample of the essays and reviews on the sciences of the long eighteenth century published in this journal since it was founded in 1969. The connecting thread is some historiographic reflections on the role that disciplines—in both the sciences we study and the fields we practice—have played in the development of the history of science over the past half century. I argue that, as far as disciplines are concerned, we now find ourselves a bit closer to a situation described in our studies of the long eighteenth century than we were fifty years ago. This should both favor our understanding of that period and, hopefully, make the historical studies that explore it more relevant to present-day developments and science policy. This essay is part of a special issue entitled “Looking Backward, Looking Forward: HSNS at 50,” edited by Erika Lorraine Milam.

Obituary notices of fellows deceased

1877 ◽  
Vol 25 (171-178) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Past History ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Earth ◽  
History Of ◽  
Reign Of Terror ◽  
Accurate Observation

George Poulett Scrope. It is scarcely possible at the present day to realize the conditions of that intellectual “reign of terror” which prevailed at the commencement of the present century, as the consequence of the unreasoning prejudice and wild alarm excited by the early progress of geological inquiry. At that period, every attempt to explain the past history of the earth by a reference to the causes still in operation upon it was met, not by argument, but by charges of atheism against its propounder; and thus Hutton’s masterly fragment of a ‘Theory of the Earth,’ Playfair’s persuasive‘ Illustrations,’ and Hall’s records of accurate observation and ingenious experiment had come to be inscribed m a social Index Expurgatorius ,and for a while, indeed, might have seemed to be consigned to total oblivion. Equally injurious suspicions were aroused against the geologist who dared to make allusion to the important part which igneous forces have undoubtedly played in the formation of certain rocks; for the authority of Werner had acquired an almost sacred cha­racter; and “ Vulcanists ” and “ Huttonians ” were equally objects of aversion and contempt. To two men who have very recently—and within a few months of one another—passed away from our midst, science is indebted for boldly en­countering and successfully overcoming this storm of prejudice. Hutton and his friends lived a generation too soon ; and thus it was reserved tor Lyell and Scrope to carry out the task which the great Scotch philosopher had failed to accomplish, namely, the removal of geology from the domain of speculation to that of inductive science.

Science and Medicine in Imperial China—The State of the Field

1988 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Sivin
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
Systems Analysis ◽  
Half Century ◽  
The Past ◽  
Professional Societies ◽  
Past Half Century ◽  
New Directions ◽  
History Of ◽  
Imperial China ◽  
Past Half

Sinology and the history of science have changed practically beyond recognition in the past half-century. Both have become academic specialisms, with their own departments, journals, and professional societies. Both have moved off in new directions, drawing on the tools and insights of several disciplines. Although some sinologists still honor no ambition beyond explicating primary texts, on many of the field's frontiers philology is no more than a tool. Similarly, many technical historians now explore issues for which anthropology or systems analysis is as indispensable as traditional historiography.

scholarly journals The History of Science and the History of Knowledge

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-90
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Manhattan Project ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Contemporary History ◽  
History Of Knowledge ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
History Of ◽  
High Level

The article examines the state of the history of science as a discipline and its objectives in the context of its origins and current transformations. The establishment of this discipline and its assumptions about the nature of science together with its goals and structure are briefly discussed. The history of science became a discipline only at the beginning of the second half of the 20th century, and its start is associated with the work of chemist James Conant, a high-level administrator in Manhattan project who was also president of Harvard University and a high-ranking bureaucrat. It was based also on the narrative developed by Alfred North Whitehead, Edwin Burtt, Alexandre Koyré and other historians of science, which claimed modern science was the creator of modernity and a necessary condition for the geopolitical domination of the West. In that understanding, modern science meant science since the time of Galileo and Newton. The author provides a critical analysis of this foundation narrative for the discipline and of its consequences while showing how contemporary history of science has overcome it. The contradiction between modernism and historicism has been resolved in favor of the latter. A key role in this was played by the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, which held the potential to undo the presumed monolithic unity of science by rejecting teleology and introducing incommensurability and discontinuities into the historical process. By rejecting explanation of the knowledge of other times and places in terms of modern science, the discipline faced a radical multiplication of independent types of knowledge. This was facilitated by the reorientation to the study of knowledge practices that took place in the 1980s. As a result, the subject matter of the history of science began to erode, and this launched discussion of the prospects for a transition to a history of knowledge based on the study of practices. The sweep of this change of vision is illustrated by the example of classifying sciences according to both their subject matter and the similarities in their research practices. Finally, the advantages and disadvantages of the new discipline along with its prospects and the challenges it faces are discussed.

scholarly journals Making the History of Early Modern Science: Reflections on a Discipline in the Age of Globalization

2015 ◽  
Vol 70 (02) ◽  
pp. 307-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonella Romano
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Early Modern Period ◽  
Homogeneous Field ◽  
Early Modern Science ◽  
Anthropology Of Science ◽  
Change Of Scale ◽  
History Of

Abstract What kind of history is the history of science? To what extent does the academic research labeled as such delineate a homogeneous field? What are the current challenges that it faces? The recent translation of Simon Schaffer’s works into French, along with the publication of his 2014 Marc Bloch Lecture in the Annales, provides the framework for this article’s historiographical reflection on the profound changes that have taken place within the discipline over the last thirty years, particularly within a French context. The analysis is twofold. First, it aims to trace how new approaches to the sociology and anthropology of science have reconfigured the boundaries of the discipline. Second, it considers the effect of the abandonment of one of its major historiographical paradigms by most of the scholars currently working on early modern science: the scientific revolution as the rise of scientific modernity, underpinned by a Eurocentric vision of the production of knowledge. Although most research on the early modern period now strives to distance itself from this narrative, it must also face new challenges and questions—in particular the role of science in the processes of globalization and the multiplicity of sites and social configurations that participate in this change of scale. These challenges point towards new methods and styles in the history of science and, more broadly, the social sciences.

Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of Ferroelectricity

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 2-3
Author(s):  
Jaichan LEE
Keyword(s):  
History Of Science ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
New Age ◽  
100Th Anniversary ◽  
Look Back ◽  
History Of ◽  
Quantum Behavior ◽  
Collective Phenomenon

It is 100 years when we think about the history of ferroelectricity. We, who study ferroelectricity, are honored and pleased to share the 100-year anniversary of ferroelectricity and recall its history. At this great moment, we look back to the brief history on the verge of ferroelectricity. Our hope is that ferroelectricity studied as an early collective phenomenon will be coupled with quantum behavior, the essence of modern science, to become a new age in the history of science and technology.

Thinking differently about leadership: a critical history of the form and formation of leadership studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Suze Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Modern Science ◽  
Leadership Studies ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Past ◽  
Critical History ◽  
Form Function ◽  
History Of ◽  
Truth Claims ◽  
Thinking Differently ◽  
The Relationship

<p>We have come to live in an age where leadership is the solution, regardless of the problem. Today, managers are called on to provide leadership which is ‘visionary’, ‘charismatic’, ‘transformational’ and ‘authentic’ in nature. This is what ‘followers’ are said to need to perform to their potential. The efforts of the academy in promoting these ideas means they are typically understood as modern, enlightened and grounded in scientific research. Taking a critical step back, this study examines why we have come to understand leadership in this way.  Adopting a Foucauldian methodology, the study comprises three case studies which examine Classical Greek, 16th century European and modern scholarly discourses on leadership. The analysis foregrounds change and continuity in leadership thought and examines the underpinning assumptions, problematizations and processes of formation which gave rise to these truth claims. The relationship and subjectivity effects produced by these discourses along with their wider social function are also considered.  What the study reveals is that our current understanding of leadership is not grounded in an approach more enlightened and truthful than anything that has come before. Rather, just as at other times in the past, it is contemporary problematizations, politically-informed processes of formation and the epistemological and methodological preferences of our age which profoundly shape what is understood to constitute the truth about leadership.  Through showing how leadership has been thought of at different points in time, this thesis argues that far from being a stable enduring fact of human nature now revealed to us by modern science, as is typically assumed, leadership is most usefully understood as an unstable social invention, morphing in form, function and effect in response to changing norms, values and circumstances. Consistent with this understanding, a new approach to theory-building for organizational leadership studies is offered. This study shows, then, why we ought to think differently about leadership and offers a means by which this can occur.</p>

Thinking differently about leadership: a critical history of the form and formation of leadership studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Suze Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Modern Science ◽  
Leadership Studies ◽  
New Approach ◽  
The Past ◽  
Critical History ◽  
Form Function ◽  
History Of ◽  
Truth Claims ◽  
Thinking Differently ◽  
The Relationship

<p>We have come to live in an age where leadership is the solution, regardless of the problem. Today, managers are called on to provide leadership which is ‘visionary’, ‘charismatic’, ‘transformational’ and ‘authentic’ in nature. This is what ‘followers’ are said to need to perform to their potential. The efforts of the academy in promoting these ideas means they are typically understood as modern, enlightened and grounded in scientific research. Taking a critical step back, this study examines why we have come to understand leadership in this way.  Adopting a Foucauldian methodology, the study comprises three case studies which examine Classical Greek, 16th century European and modern scholarly discourses on leadership. The analysis foregrounds change and continuity in leadership thought and examines the underpinning assumptions, problematizations and processes of formation which gave rise to these truth claims. The relationship and subjectivity effects produced by these discourses along with their wider social function are also considered.  What the study reveals is that our current understanding of leadership is not grounded in an approach more enlightened and truthful than anything that has come before. Rather, just as at other times in the past, it is contemporary problematizations, politically-informed processes of formation and the epistemological and methodological preferences of our age which profoundly shape what is understood to constitute the truth about leadership.  Through showing how leadership has been thought of at different points in time, this thesis argues that far from being a stable enduring fact of human nature now revealed to us by modern science, as is typically assumed, leadership is most usefully understood as an unstable social invention, morphing in form, function and effect in response to changing norms, values and circumstances. Consistent with this understanding, a new approach to theory-building for organizational leadership studies is offered. This study shows, then, why we ought to think differently about leadership and offers a means by which this can occur.</p>

scholarly journals Images as documents for the history of science: some remarks concerning classification

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Helena Roxo Beltran ◽  
Vera Cecilia Machline
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Arts ◽  
History Of ◽  
Ancient Times

Studies on history of science are increasingly emphasizing the important role that, since ancient times, images have had in the processes of shaping concepts, as well as registering and transmitting knowledge about nature and the arts. In the past years, we have developed at Center Simão Mathias of Studies on the History of Science (CESIMA) inquiries devoted to the analysis of images as forms of registering and transmitting knowledge about nature and the arts – that is to say, as documents pertaining to the history of science. These inquiries are grounded on the assumption that all images derive from the interaction between the artistic technique used in their manufacture and the concept intended to be expressed by them. This study enabled us to analyze distinct roles that images have had in different fields of knowledge at various ages. Some of the results obtained so far are summarized in the present article.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document