scholarly journals From Galileo to Navier and Clapeyron

Author(s):  
Josep Maria Pons

Galileo (1564-1642), in his well-known Discorsi (Galileo, 1638), briefly turning his attention to the fracture of a beam, starts an interesting discussion on the beam’s breakage as well as its location. Could the section and breaking point of a beam have been determined beforehand? Furthermore, is it specific to the material? What Galileo did was not merely challenge a physics problem, but the prevailing knowledge of his time: namely, Aristotelianism on one hand, and Nominalism on the other. As a matter of fact, must the breakage of an element be treated as a universal or is it particular to a given material? The present essay aims to prove how Galileo, confronting the structural problem and bringing it into the realm of science, was not just raising a problem but, using Salviati’s words, he also established what actually takes place. Many years later, with the progress of physics, strength of materials and theory of structures, figures such as Claude Navier (1785-1836) and Benoît Clapeyron (1799-1864) confirmed once again that the Pisan turned out to be right. This article intends to combine technical fields such as strength of materials and theory of structures with others like the history of science and philosophy proper. A cooperative approach to these disciplines can be doubtlessly helpful to improve the knowledge, learning and teaching of their different curricula, giving the reader a global, holistic perspective.  

1976 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 394
Author(s):  
Donald J. Dessart

One of the major task facing the Research Advisory Committee (RAC) is to serve the needs of two groups: researchers in mathematics education, who are primarily concerned with understanding the learning process: and practitioners (teachers, supervisors. principals), who are mainly concerned with finding more effective ways to teach children. Researchers, guided by their intuitions, study problems and often obtain results that are not directly applicable to the classroom situation: practitioners, on the other hand. actively pursue better ways to educate children in the classroom. To insist that researchers should address themselves only to the immediate problems of the classroom seems to be an unwise course of action, since the history of science includes many discoveries that had useful applications years, or even centuries, after their di scovery. Yet for researchers to ignore the need of the classroom may lead to sterile research results that only collect dust in the darkened corners of a library.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-223
Author(s):  
Wael Omar Alomari Wael Omar Alomari

The roots of the rhetorical lesson grew in a fertile religious land. They characterized its rhetoric from the rhetoric of the rest of the nations as it was connected with the Qur’anic text. However, the religious stream did not have only one subject and one goal. It produced multiple contexts that refined the teachings of the rhetorical lesson later on. This diversity was a fertile tool for Arabic eloquence. The research sought to discuss the details of the roots, to extract the courses of religious influence in the emergence of Arabic rhetoric. The research has gone beyond the oral news and stories to begin with the written diaries, in search of the author’s motivations and his aims, and of the milestones that contributed to the reading of the rhetorical lesson. It emanated from the signs of the composition, so the limits of the research stopped at the beginning of the independent composition of Arabic rhetoric and moved to a stage approaching the methodology. The research revealed three courses that stemmed from the religious influence which were related to language. These three courses are analysis, interpretation and explanation. They were tools that were used in the analysis that aimed to understand the Qura’nic text in order to transfer it from language to practice. The interpretation, on the other hand, raised the question of compatibility between language and belief. The explanation tried to deal with the issue of miracles and clarifying its features. The re-reading of the history of science is an area that can research, re-ask the question, and disassociate its relations, to understand the process of science, and the impact of their tributaries on their concepts. This is what researchers can examine in the rest of the tributaries that have fueled the rhetorical lesson.


2019 ◽  
pp. 151-168
Author(s):  
László Szörényi

As a poet, the parish priest Johannes Valentini (Turčiansky Michal, 1756 – Kláštor pod Znievom, 1812) is very much tied to the other Neo-Latin priest-poets living in Hungary and the other countries of the Habsburg Empire by the tradition of laudation in occasional poetry, which flourished from the antiquity until the end of the 19th century and was a tool to praise or mourn religious superiors or secular patronising potentates. Valentini, however, is different from the other poets in his very extensive interest in prehistory. When he poeticises the history of the provostry of Thurocz, he engages in lengthy explanations which are far bigger in size than the poem itself, and are also supplemented with footnotes.From a viewpoint of history of science this approach is probably connected mostly to the research initiated by the Jesuit historian Georgius Papánek, but Valentini’s work – similarly to authors of all other nationalities of that time in the Kingdom of Hungary – of course contains mythical and legendary elements, to which he naturally utilizes the reports of antique Greek and Roman writers about Eastern-origin exotic peoples. The Nagykároly (Carei, Szatmár county)-based Ferdinandus Thomas, for example, derives the origin of Hungarians from Ethiops! But we can name examples from either Romanian or South Slav literatures.Valentini is of high significance, because in many ways he – with his poet colleagues, writing in Slovak or other language – clears the way for Orientalism, an important trend of European Romanticism.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergei Teleshov ◽  
◽  
Elena Teleshova ◽  

It has been 150 years since D.I. Mendeleev formulated the Periodic law and expressed it visually in the form of a table of elements in 1869. As is clearly well known today, Mendeleev’s ideas, confirmed by the discovery of the elements he predicted, turned out to be very promising indeed. However, Mendeleev was not the first, nor the only scientist to have investigated the periodic arrangement of the elements. With this in mind, the present paper seeks to highlight some of the other efforts made in the field during Mendeleev’s lifetime. Keywords: D. Mendeleev, periodic table, table options, history of science.


Author(s):  
Fernando Manuel Ferreira da Silva ◽  

«Die Art, wie er den Mechanismus der Natur mit ihrer Zweckmäßigkeit vereiniget, scheint mir eigentlich den ganzen Geist seines Systems zu enthalten»; This quotation, which originated the present essay, is solely extracted from a letter sent by Hölderlin to Hegel, and yet, it condensates three different approaches from the three Tübingen friends to the problem of Kant’s philosophy of religion and to its possible resolution between 1795 and 1796. From this epistolary dialogue emerges a simultaneous study of Kant, originated by the growing dissension towards the orthodox thought of the Stift. The tuming point - or the maximum cumulative point - of this discordance happens precisely with the discovery of the «spirit of Kant’s System», as a combined explanation of the religious and philosophical phenomena [«Die Art, wie er den Mechanismus der Natur mit ihrer Zweckmässigkeit vereiniget»]. This, I think, is something which the three friends discover gradually and not independently from the concept of «providence», which Kant himself, according to Hölderlin, had used to «attenuate his antinomies», which Hegel uses in his first religious writings and the initial formation of his own philosophy and which Schelling will later explore in his System of Transcendental Idealism. In a word, providence is consensually the comprehension axis between man, God and nature and, thus, the explanatory link between the antinomical poles which regulate human existence. On the other hand, however - this being the aspect I would like to stress - , this decisive moment for a whole generation, for the history of philosophy itself, means the consummation of a new revolutionary perspective born in Kant, a new vision of the absolute and the divine and, therefore, a new way to write philosophy about philosophy, less philosophical than before, to the extent that the new situation of man and his reflection within the problem ultimately destined them - as is the case in the three young philosophers - to silence and death. The final aim of this essay is, therefore, to know what this «last step of philosophy» is and what dies along with it, what such a step may have meant and what it already foretold in terms of the development of philosophy.


Paragraph ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-60
Author(s):  
Anne-Lise Rey

The object of this article is to lay bare the consensualist presuppositions implicit within contemporary analyses of the controversies of the Classical Age by proposing an alternative model: agonistic pluralism. The convergence between this political reading of the controversies and an epistemological reading is reinforced by a discussion of Hasok Chang's work, which develops a model of epistemic pluralism that breaks away from studies in the history of science undertaken following the Kuhnian model of scientific revolutions. This makes it possible to question the theoretical convergence of two anti-hegemonic claims: one political, the other epistemological. I aim to put this new model of analysis to the test by applying it to a well known, oft-analysed dispute, that which erupted between Dortous de Mairan and Emilie du Châtelet following the publication of the Institutions de Physique (Foundations of Physics).


Author(s):  
Onésimo T. Almeida

In following a sequence of articles published in the last thirty years which discuss, on the one hand, a series of Portuguese exaggerations, and on the other, attempt to shed contemporary historiographic light on some important omissions regarding the era in which Portugal its discoveries, the present article discusses what are currently understood as the Portuguese contributions to scientific modernity. Though this recognition is generally accepted by Portuguese historians, this article locates these accomplishments within the global framework of the development of a scientific mentality and methodology, and within the general history of science.


2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 600-609 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén

Marie and Pierre Curie’s decision not to patent the discovery (1898) and later isolation (1902) of radium is perhaps the most famous of all disinterested decisions in the history of science. To choose publishing instead of patenting and openness instead of enclosure was hardly a radical choice at the time. Traditionally, we associate academic publishing with “pure science” and Mertonian ideals of openness, sharing and transparency. Patenting on the other hand, as a byproduct of “applied science” is intimately linked to an increased emphasis and dependency on commercialization and technology transfer within academia. Starting from the Curies’ mythological decision I delineate the contours of an increasing convergence of the patent and the paper (article) from the end of the nineteenth-century until today. Ultimately, my goal is to suggest a few possible ways of addressing the hybrid space that today constitute the terrain of late modern science and intellectual property.


Author(s):  
Ailie Smith

With more resources becoming freely available online through the digitisation projects and the publication of online public knowledge resources, the possibilities for connecting previously separate pieces of information have increased and some of the untold stories in the history of science can emerge. However there can be problems in relying on external knowledge services to connect pieces of the story. There are also gaps in the scientific biographies of many notable people, which may be filled by resources from other. This paper will explore some of the possibilities and challenges associated with producing and sustaining online knowledge resources.


2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-523
Author(s):  
Vittoria Feola

This essay aims to reappraise Agnes Arber's contribution to the history of science with reference to her work in the history of botany and biology. Both her first and her last books (Herbals, 1912; The Mind and the Eye, 1954) are classics: the former in the history of botany, the latter in that of biology. As such, they are still cited today, albeit with increasing criticism. Her very last book was rejected by Cambridge University Press because it did not meet the publisher's academic standards – we shall return to it in due course. Despite Kathryn Packer's two essays about Arber's life in context, much remains to be done toward a just appreciation of her research. We need such a reappraisal in order to avoid anachronistic criticisms of her contributions to the historiography of botany, or, on the other hand, uncritical applause for her studies in plant morphology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document