Material culture in the history of science: case studies from the National Maritime Museum

2008 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD DUNN
Keyword(s):  
Material Culture ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
History Of ◽  
Maritime Museum

scholarly journals Using History as Evidence in Philosophy of Science: A Methodological Critique

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
James W. McAllister
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Qualitative Approaches ◽  
History Of

Abstract This article offers a critical review of past attempts and possible methods to test philosophical models of science against evidence from history of science. Drawing on methodological debates in social science, I distinguish between quantitative and qualitative approaches. I show that both have their uses in history and philosophy of science, but that many writers in this domain have misunderstood and misapplied these approaches, and especially the method of case studies. To test scientific realism, for example, quantitative methods are more effective than case studies. I suggest that greater methodological clarity would enable the project of integrated history and philosophy of science to make renewed progress.

scholarly journals REFORMATION AND THE DISTRUST OF THE PROJECTOR IN THE HARTLIB CIRCLE

2012 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 375-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
KOJI YAMAMOTO
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Shared Experience ◽  
Useful Knowledge ◽  
New Synthesis ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
History Of

ABSTRACTCase-studies of the circle of Samuel Hartlib, one of the most prolific groups of reformers in post-Reformation Europe, are flourishing. The uncovering of rich details has, however, made it difficult to draw a meaningful generalization about the circle's bewilderingly wide range of activities. Focusing on the circle's promotion of ‘useful knowledge’, this article offers an analytical framework for building a new synthesis. The eclectic and seemingly chaotic pursuit of useful knowledge emerged, it will be shown, as differing responses to, and interpretations of, pervasive distrust and the pursuit of reformation. The article thus explores how loosely-shared experience shaped the circle's ambivalent practices of collaboration and exclusion. The study thereby contributes not only to studies of the Hartlib circle, but also to the historiography of post-Reformation culture and burgeoning studies of trust and credibility in the history of science and technology.

„Gentlemen in, Genuine Knowledge out“? Zum Status wissenschaftlicher Normen für die Erkenntnissicherung

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lara Huber
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Engineering ◽  
Transgenic Mice ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Scientific Practices ◽  
History Of ◽  
Genuine Knowledge

ZusammenfassungCase studies in the history of science and technology have shown that scientific norms, so called standards, contribute significantly to the evolution of scientific practices. They arise predominantly, but not exclusively, on the basis of interactions with instruments of measurement and other technical devices. As regards experimental practices standards are mandatory preparatory procedures in a variety of designs, including the inbreeding and genetic engineering of experimental organisms (e.g. transgenic mice). I claim that scientific norms not only regulate mere technical preconditions of research but also guide experimental practices, for example with regard to the stabilisation and validation of phenomena. Against this background, the paper introduces different kinds of scientific norms and elaborates on the question if they are means to epistemic ends (e.g. stability).

scholarly journals BJHS special section: book history and the sciences Introduction

2000 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
JONATHAN R. TOPHAM
Keyword(s):  
Material Culture ◽  
Social History ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Book History ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
History Of ◽  
Innovative Work ◽  
Culture Of Science ◽  
History Of Books

The expanding interest in book history over recent years has heralded the coming together of an interdisciplinary research community drawing scholars from a variety of literary, historical and cultural studies. Moreover, with a growing body of literature, the field is becoming increasingly visible on a wider scale, not least through the existence of the Society for the History of Authorship, Readership and Publishing (SHARP), with its newly founded journal Book History. Within the history of science, however, there remains not a little scepticism concerning the practical value of such an approach. It is often dismissed as an intellectual fad or as an enterprise which is illuminating but ultimately peripheral, rather than being valued as an approach which can offer major new insights within the field. This is no doubt in part because much of the most innovative work in history of science over recent years has been carried out by historians anxious to get away from an earlier overemphasis on printed sources. Eager to correct a profoundly unsocial history of ideas, usually rooted in texts, historians have looked increasingly to both the practices and the material culture of science. In such a context, a renewed focus on the history of books sometimes seems like a retrograde step, especially given the common misidentification of ‘books’ with ‘texts’. On the contrary, however, it is just such a twin emphasis on practices and material culture which also characterizes the new book history. Indeed, to the question ‘what is book history for?’ we might answer that its object is to reintroduce social actors, engaged in a variety of practices with respect to material objects, into a history in which books have too often been understood merely as disembodied texts, the meaning of which is defined by singular, uniquely creative authors, and is transparent to readers.

Aspects of knowledge

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Material Culture ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Middle Ages ◽  
Cross Sections ◽  
Historical Period ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
History Of Art ◽  
History Of ◽  
Literature History

This edited collection explores how knowledge was preserved and reinvented in the Middle Ages. Unlike previous publications, which are predominantly focused either on a specific historical period or on precise cultural and historical events, this volume, which includes essays spanning from the eighth to the fifteenth centuries, is intended to eschew traditional categorisations of periodisation and disciplines and to enable the establishment of connections and cross-sections between different departments of knowledge, including the history of science (computus, prognostication), the history of art, literature, theology (homilies, prayers, hagiography, contemplative texts), music, historiography and geography. As suggested by its title, the collection does not pretend to aim at inclusiveness or comprehensiveness but is intended to highlight suggestive strands of what is a very wide topic. The chapters in this volume are grouped into four sections: I, Anthologies of Knowledge; II Transmission of Christian Traditions; III, Past and Present; and IV, Knowledge and Materiality, which are intended to provide the reader with a further thematic framework for approaching aspects of knowledge. Aspects of knowledge is mainly aimed to an academic readership, including advanced undergraduate and postgraduate students, and specialists of medieval literature, history of science, history of knowledge, history, geography, theology, music, philosophy, intellectual history, history of the language and material culture.

scholarly journals Archive of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in the Days of Great Trials: 1941-1942

2020 ◽  
pp. 719-735
Author(s):  
Simon S. Ilizarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Material Culture ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Ussr Academy ◽  
Scientific Heritage ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Geographical Society ◽  
Soviet Academy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Academy Of Sciences

This paper reviews the work of the Archive of the Soviet Academy of Sciences during the blockade of Leningrad in 1941–42. It is based on the archive series that contains a report detailing the work of the 22 Academy’s institutions in Leningrad (11 scientific research institutes, 3 museums, the Archive, the Library, the Geographical Society, etc.) over 7 months of 1942 and prepared for the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It lists Archive’s staff members who died or were evacuated during this period. It shows that, even in the hardest days under the blockade, the work in the Archive never stopped. An important part of this work was associated with the activities of the Commission for the History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (KIAN). The paper reviews the history of the KIAN creation under the auspices of the Archive of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in Leningrad in 1938, soon after forcible liquidation of the Institute for the History of Science and Technology and tragic death of its first director, Academician N.I. Bukharin. A number of outstanding historians-archivists and historians of science – A.I. Andreyev, I.I. Lyubimenko, L.B. Modzalevskii, and others – participated in the work of the KIAN headed by Academician S. I. Vavilov and his deputy, Director of the Archive, G.A. Knyazev. The research and archaeographic work of the Archive’s staff was associated with preparation of publications for the “Scientific Heritage” series (it was established in 1940 upon initiative of the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences V. L. Komarov with active participation of the eminent historian of science T. I. Rainov). During that period, the editorial work on the second volume of the “Reviews of Archive Materials” (Obozreniya arkhivnykh materialov) was completed and V.F. Gnucheva completed her unique history-of-science book “The Geographical Department of the 18th century Academy of Sciences.” Both books were published after the war, in 1946. The main result of the work of the few Archive’s staff members was safeguarding the precious historical materials and searching for, concentrating, and preserving documentation of evacuated institutions and individual scientists, some of whom were killed by the cold, famine, and diseases. The paper contains data from official reports: quantitative data concerning documents taken into the Archive’s custody in 1941 and in 1942 and processed and described series; it names institutions and scholars, whose documents ended up in the Archive of the Academy of Sciences. By July 31, 1942, the number of fonds in the Archive reached 740. Reports of such Academy institutions as the Institute of Oriental Studies, the N.Ya. Marr Institute for the History of Material Culture, the Institute of Literature, the All-Union Geographical Society, and others allow the scholars to analyze their work associated with the preservation of books and archival fonds and collections. The paper is based on documentary sources that are being introduced into scientific use for the first time.

Hitting two birds with one stone: An afterword on archeology and the history of science

2017 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-391
Author(s):  
Mirjam Brusius
Keyword(s):  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Material Culture ◽  
History Of Science ◽  
Special Section ◽  
Social Contexts ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Human Variation ◽  
Institutional Infrastructure ◽  
History Of

This afterword comments on the articles gathered together in this special section of History of Science (“Disassembling Archaeology, Reassembling the Modern World”). Criticizing the consistent lack of institutional infrastructure for histories of archaeology in the history of science, the piece argues that scholars should recognize the commonality of archaeology’s practices with those of the nineteenth and twentieth century field sciences that have received more historical attention. The piece also suggests avenues to help take this approach further, such as combining expertise from historians of the biological sciences and of antiquarianism and archaeology to look at the history of the understanding of human variation and race. Finally, the afterword suggests that scholars should reconsider the idea of archaeology’s reliance on institutionalised practices, thinking about the use and re-use of material culture in more diverse and pragmatic social contexts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document