2012 HES PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS DOES THE VICTOR ENJOY THE SPOILS? PAUL SAMUELSON AS HISTORIAN OF ECONOMICS

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
PHILIP MIROWSKI

This Presidential Address revisits Paul Samuelson’s views on the history of science and history of economics, with the advantage of archival evidence from his papers now deposited at Duke. It suggests he was not impressed with historians in general; but also, that his faith in the orthodox neoclassical profession failed him towards the end of his life, when those in the profession started to treat him the way that he had treated the historians.

Author(s):  
Henk W. de Regt

This chapter introduces the theme of the book: scientific understanding. Science is arguably the most successful product of the human desire for understanding. Reflection on the nature of scientific understanding is an important and exciting project for philosophers of science, as well as for scientists and interested laypeople. As a first illustration of this, the chapter sketches an episode from the history of science in which discussions about understanding played a crucial role: the genesis of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, and the heated debates about the intelligibility of this theory and the related question of whether it can provide understanding. This case shows that standards of intelligibility of scientists can vary strongly. Furthermore, the chapter outlines and defends the way in which this study approaches its subject, differing essentially from mainstream philosophical discussions of explanatory understanding. It concludes with an overview of the contents of the book.


Author(s):  
Anik Waldow

From within the philosophy of history and history of science alike, attention has been paid to Herder’s naturalist commitment and especially to the way in which his interest in medicine, anatomy, and biology facilitates philosophically significant notions of force, organism, and life. As such, Herder’s contribution is taken to be part of a wider eighteenth-century effort to move beyond Newtonian mechanism and the scientific models to which it gives rise. In this scholarship, Herder’s hermeneutic philosophy—as it grows out of his engagement with poetry, drama, and both literary translation and literary documentation projects—has received less attention. Taking as its point of departure Herder’s early work, this chapter proposes that, in his work on literature, Herder formulates an anthropologically sensitive approach to the human sciences that has still not received the attention it deserves.


1999 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 343-344
Author(s):  
Lance Day

It is with deep regret that we record the death of John Anthony Chaldecott on 2 May 1998 at the age of 82. He was a founder member of the BSHS and served as Honorary Secretary and as President.After graduating in physics at London University, John took up teaching and lecturing, but this was interrupted by war service in the RAF Meteorological Branch. In the fighting in the Netherlands, he was mentioned in despatches. In 1949, he joined the Science Museum as Assistant Keeper in the Physics Department. There, he was in charge of the Optics Collection and also the Heat and the George III Collections, for which he produced catalogues. For some years, he acted as Secretary to the Museum's Advisory Council.In 1961, John became Keeper of the Science Museum Library, a post he held until his retirement in 1976. His time there was active and eventful. First, the transfer of the Library's nation-wide loans service, together with many of its periodicals, to the National Lending Library of Science and Technology in 1962 entailed a redirection of the Library's resources and services. Then, he was closely involved in the planning of the present Library building on the Imperial College campus in South Kensington, opened in 1969. He made a thorough study of the latest library design and equipment, so as to incorporate as many modern features as possible within a very tight budget. The success of the building owed much to his untiring and meticulous attention to detail.While building was in progress, his attention was assailed from a fresh quarter, this time from the National Libraries Committee. Their conclusions disconcerted the Science Museum and the fact that the Library remained under the Museum's wing, with a redefined role, owed much to John's skill and determination in negotiation. The Library was to specialize in the history of science and he did much to turn the Library towards the new direction. It was his decision to assemble the Library's scattered books and periodicals in this field and house them in a special history of science reading room. All this chimed in with his own interest in this subject. He had gained an M.Sc. in the history and philosophy of science at University College London in 1949, followed up later with a Ph.D. He was active in the BSHS from the beginning and he was Honorary Secretary during 1963–68. He was elected President for the year 1972–73; his presidential address was entitled ‘Josiah Wedgwood (1730–1795), scientist’. He published a number of papers on historical subjects, but his abiding interest lay in scientific instrument makers; he formed a massive record of information about those active in London from 1750 to 1840, now deposited in the Science Museum Library Archives Collection. Soon after his retirement, he was responsible for a major exhibition at the Science Museum illustrating Wedgwood's life and work and he published an accompanying monograph.Throughout his life, John preserved that calm and even-tempered manner which made him such a pleasant colleague and genial, good-humoured friend. He was always fair and even-handed in his dealings with others.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 139-156
Author(s):  
François Duchesneau

Using a method which emphasizes the importance of the explanatory systems of the past for the history of science, this article studies eighteenth-century theories of irritability and muscular contraction. The main focus is on Albrecht von Heller and the way his theories are analogous to Newtonian "principles."


2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinhard Schumacher

This article reconstructs Adam Smith's theory of international trade and compares it with the way it is presented in modern textbooks as the theory of absolute advantage. This textbook presentation falls short of Smith's original ideas. I argue that the reason for this is the doxographic reconstruction of Smith's theory to fit him into a Whig history of international trade theory. In this way the historiography of international trade theory has falsely established Smith as a forerunner of modern neoclassical trade theory. I conclude by discussing to what extent Smith's insights can still be relevant today and what can be learnt from the mistreatment Smith has suffered in the historiography of international trade theory.


1987 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-276
Author(s):  
Abbas Mirakhor

Introduction. . .The enterpriser addressing a Greek who had been boasting of the scientificachievement of his people, says: You boast most unreasonably of these sciences;for you did not discover them by your own penetration, but attained them fromthe scientific men of Ptolemy's times; and some sciences you took from the Eygptiansin the days of Prammetichus, and then introduced them into your ownland, and now you claim to have discovered them. The King asked the Greekphilosopher: "Can it be as he says?" He replied saying, "It is true; we obtainedmost of the sciences from the preceding philosophers, as others now receivethem from us. Such is the way of the world - for one people to derive benefitfrom another. Rasail of the Ikhwan Al-SafaNever in any age was any science discovered, but from the beginning of theworld wisdom has increased gradually, and it has not yet been completed asregards this life. Roger Bacon. . .there is no longer any excuse for a pmctice which has confounded the studyof medieval economics since its inception more than a century ago, namely,that of basing the most sweeping historical generalizations on a fav familiarnames, with no regard for context and continuity; even the best textbooks inthe field still skip and jump from one century to the next, in and out of differenttraditions. But a scholastic commentator superimposed his own ideas on thoseaccumulated in the particular tmdition in which he wrote, accepted its premisesand adopted its language. He cannot be fully understood until its foundationis also dug out.It is easy now to forget that those who laid the foundation of modemeconomics in the eighteenth century were as familiar with the accumulated ...


1996 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Henderson

I found preparing this presidential address a much greater challenge than I had anticipated. After much deliberation, I decided to explore the historical roots of what we are doing now. The History of Economics Society, like other learned societies, holds an annual conference in different cities; members present papers which are discussed; and the Society sponsors a specialist journal—The Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Why? Where did this tradition begin? I turned to several historians of science—I. Bernard Cohen, Thomas S. Kuhn, Richard Yeo, and Ian Hacking—for some background.


2003 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Daniel Hammond

I showed a draft of my presidential address to a friend the other day. He read for a few minutes, then looked up at me and said, “Your address will be remembered long after The Wealth of Nations, Ricardo's Principles, and The General Theory are all forgotten, but not until then!”Remembering is what we who read, write, and teach history of economics are about. Historians preserve memory; we collect historical facts, organize them, and store them in conceptual filing systems. Remembering accurately and fully is hard work. Memory is tricky. It is always incomplete. It is well known that different witnesses to an event such as a traffic accident can remember the event quite differently, so that their accounts of what happened seem incompatible with each other. They may even appear not to be reports of the same event.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Egeland

AbstractConsiderations of scientific evidence are often thought to provide externalism with the dialectical upper hand in the internalism–externalism debate. How so? A couple of reasons are forthcoming in the literature. (1) Williamson (2000) argues that the E = K thesis (in contrast to internalism) provides the best explanation for the fact that scientists appear to argue from premises about true propositions (or facts) that are common knowledge among the members of the scientific community. (2) Kelly (Philosophy Compass, 3 (5), 933–955, 2008; 2016) argues that only externalism is suited to account for the public character of scientific evidence. In this article, I respond to Williamson and Kelly’s arguments. First, I show that the E = K thesis isn’t supported by the way in which we talk about scientific evidence, and that it is unable to account for facts about what has been regarded as scientific evidence and as justified scientific belief in the history of science. Second, I argue that there are internalist views that can account for the publicity of scientific evidence, and that those views indeed do better in that regard than the (externalist) view proposed by Kelly. The upshot is that considerations of scientific evidence do not favor externalism over internalism.


Author(s):  
Anna Cetera-Włodarczyk ◽  
Jarosław Włodarczyk

Shakespeare appears to be one of the most intensely studied authors exemplifying mutual influence of literature and science. Significantly enough, astronomical references deserve a particular attention due to the spectacular change of paradigm resulting from the replacement of the concept of the geocentric cosmos with the concept of the heliocentric universe. Starting from some general remarks concerning the methodological assumptions of such analyses and the specificity of Shakespeare canon, the paper offers an in-depth study of Anthony and Cleopatra  as one of the most representative plays with regard to the number, suggestiveness and interpretative potential of astronomical references. The paper exemplifies the way in which the play combines traditional astronomical and astrological allusions with some unconventional images, usually featuring imaginative hyperboles, which inscribe the fate and feelings of the characters into a cosmic framework. These references repeatedly trigger some fascinating and yet risky interpretations which strive to present Shakespeare as part of the scientific revolution of the age. Refraining from any value judgment, the paper highlights the overall importance of reading Renaissance literature, and Shakespeare in particular, against the background of the history of science in a way which allows for precise identification of contemporary sources of astronomical knowledge as well as for the reconstruction of the actual paths of dissemination of such ideas.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document