scholarly journals Ukrainian Popular Science in Habsburg Galicia, 1900-14

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-171
Author(s):  
Martin Rohde

This paper historicizes the idea of “popular science” in the Ukrainian academic discourse in relation to contemporary approaches to “national science” (as “science proper”) and places special emphasis on the introduction of regular scientific lectures to public audiences in early twentieth century Habsburg Galicia. The Shevchenko Scientific Society was the central Ukrainian association of scholars and scientists at the time. Male-dominated, and increasingly dedicated to “Ukrainoznavstvo” (“Ukrainian studies”), the Shevchenko Scientific Society paid little attention to the popularization of scientific research. The Petro Mohyla Society for Ukrainian Scientific Lectures emerged in reaction to the Shevchenko Society. Its goal was to expand public awareness of the scientific work, and its members proceeded to organize regular public lectures all over Galicia between 1909 and 1914. This paper analyzes such popularization of science, propagated by the Petro Mohyla Society, and examines the lecture audiences with regard to their location, gender, and respective interests.

The first half of the twentieth century was marked by the simultaneous development of logic and mathematics. Logic offered the necessary means to justify the foundations of mathematics and to solve the crisis that arose in mathematics in the early twentieth century. In European science in the late nineteenth century, the ideas of symbolic logic, based on the works of J. Bull, S. Jevons and continued by C. Pierce in the United States and E. Schroeder in Germany were getting popular. The works by G. Frege and B. Russell should be considered more progressive towards the development of mathematical logic. The perspective of mathematical logic in solving the crisis of mathematics in Ukraine was noticed by Professor of Mathematics of Novorossiysk (Odesa) University Ivan Vladislavovich Sleshynsky. Sleshynsky (1854 –1931) is a Doctor of Mathematical Sciences (1893), Professor (1898) of Novorossiysk (Odesa) University. After studying at the University for two years he was a Fellow at the Department of Mathematics of Novorossiysk University, defended his master’s thesis and was sent to a scientific internship in Berlin (1881–1882), where he listened to the lectures by K. Weierstrass, L. Kronecker, E. Kummer, G. Bruns. Under the direction of K. Weierstrass he prepared a doctoral dissertation for defense. He returned to his native university in 1882, and at the same time he was a teacher of mathematics in the seminary (1882–1886), Odesa high schools (1882–1892), and taught mathematics at the Odesa Higher Women’s Courses. Having considerable achievements in the field of mathematics, in particular, Pringsheim’s Theorem (1889) proved by Sleshinsky on the conditions of convergence of continuous fractions, I. Sleshynsky drew attention to a new direction of logical science. The most significant work for the development of national mathematical logic is the translation by I. Sleshynsky from the French language “Algebra of Logic” by L. Couturat (1909). Among the most famous students of I. Sleshynsky, who studied and worked at Novorossiysk University and influenced the development of mathematical logic, one should mention E. Bunitsky and S. Shatunovsky. The second period of scientific work of I. Sleshynsky is connected with Poland. In 1911 he was invited to teach mathematical disciplines at Jagiellonian University and focused on mathematical logic. I. Sleshynsky’s report “On Traditional Logic”, delivered at the meeting of the Philosophical Society in Krakow. He developed the common belief among mathematicians that logic was not necessary for mathematics. His own experience of teaching one of the most difficult topics in higher mathematics – differential calculus, pushed him to explore logic, since the requirement of perfect mathematical proof required this. In one of his further works of this period, he noted the promising development of mathematical logic and its importance for mathematics. He claimed that for the mathematics of future he needed a new logic, which he saw in the “Principles of Mathematics” by A. Whitehead and B. Russell. Works on mathematical logic by I. Sleszynski prompted many of his students in Poland to undertake in-depth studies in this field, including T. Kotarbiński, S. Jaśkowski, V. Boreyko, and S. Zaremba. Thanks to S. Zaremba, I. Sleshynsky managed to complete the long-planned concept, a two-volume work “Theory of Proof” (1925–1929), the basis of which were lectures of Professor. The crisis period in mathematics of the early twentieth century, marked by the search for greater clarity in the very foundations of mathematical reasoning, led to the transition from the study of mathematical objects to the study of structures. The most successful means of doing this were proposed by mathematical logic. Thanks to Professor I. Sleshynsky, who succeeded in making Novorossiysk (Odesa) University a center of popularization of mathematical logic in the beginning of the twentieth century the ideas of mathematical logic in scientific environment became more popular. However, historical events prevented the ideas of mathematical logic in the domestic scientific space from the further development.


2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
JIM ENDERSBY

AbstractBetween 1916 and 1927, botanists in several countries independently resolved three problems that had mystified earlier naturalists – including Charles Darwin: how did the many species of orchid that did not produce nectar persuade insects to pollinate them? Why did some orchid flowers seem to mimic insects? And why should a native British orchid suffer ‘attacks’ from a bee? Half a century after Darwin's death, these three mysteries were shown to be aspects of a phenomenon now known as pseudocopulation, whereby male insects are deceived into attempting to mate with the orchid's flowers, which mimic female insects; the males then carry the flower's pollen with them when they move on to try the next deceptive orchid. Early twentieth-century botanists were able to see what their predecessors had not because orchids (along with other plants) had undergone an imaginative re-creation: Darwin's science was appropriated by popular interpreters of science, including the novelist Grant Allen; then H.G. Wells imagined orchids as killers (inspiring a number of imitators), to produce a genre of orchid stories that reflected significant cultural shifts, not least in the presentation of female sexuality. It was only after these changes that scientists were able to see plants as equipped with agency, actively able to pursue their own, cunning reproductive strategies – and to outwit animals in the process. This paper traces the movement of a set of ideas that were created in a context that was recognizably scientific; they then became popular non-fiction, then popular fiction, and then inspired a new science, which in turn inspired a new generation of fiction writers. Long after clear barriers between elite and popular science had supposedly been established in the early twentieth century, they remained porous because a variety of imaginative writers kept destabilizing them. The fluidity of the boundaries between makers, interpreters and publics of scientific knowledge was a highly productive one; it helped biology become a vital part of public culture in the twentieth century and beyond.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-216
Author(s):  
А. А Romanov . ◽  
◽  
K.K Zhampeissova ◽  

The article shows the stages of life of the outstanding teacher, psychologist, scientist and educator A.P.Nechaev, exiled to Kazakhstan. describing the main milestones and dynamics of the formation of experimental pedagogy in the early twentieth century. His name is associated with many innovative methods of scientific research for its time, the priority of the development of syndrome psychology, which laid the basic provisions of differential psychophysiology. The current ideas of the scientist about the integrity of the study and the spiritual and moral development of the individual are highlighted.


Author(s):  
Kirsten Leng

The Introduction makes a case for gendering the history of sexology; specifically it argues that focusing on women’s ideas facilitates a more complex understanding of sexology as a form of knowledge and power. It begins by introducing the key figures and exploring the kinds of political promise they saw in scientific knowledge. It then challenges the limits of Foucault’s highly influential analysis of sexology by contextualizing sexology’s emergence within the rise of the women’s movement in the later nineteenth and early twentieth century. Moreover, the Introduction draws on the sociology of science to reframe sexology as a field, and thus to argue that sexology was built and animated by a diverse range of actors with disparate investments in the creation of this knowledge. Finally, it discusses the limitations of women’s sexual scientific work and the ambivalent legacy it bequeathed.


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin Donahue Wylie

England's Education Acts in the late nineteenth century made school free and mandatory for all children, filling schools with more and younger students. Visual teaching methods such as blackboard drawing were used to catch young students’ eyes and engage their interest. At the same time, there was high public engagement with natural history and popular science lectures, which built the perception of science as accessible, interesting and useful for people of all social classes. This “science for all” trend along with the new universal education paved the way for nature study, a new school subject based on experiential learning through observation of plants and animals, similar to the popular nineteenth-century pedagogy of object lessons. The many manuals about nature study that were published for teachers in England in the early twentieth century reveal the content, pedagogy, and portrayal of science communicated to young students. Analysis of one manual, Nature teaching on the blackboard (1910), sheds light on typical nature study lessons, including suggested images for teachers to draw on the blackboard. Visual methods of teaching science were not limited to schoolchildren: university lecturers as well as popularizers of science used object lessons and blackboard drawing to educate and entertain their adult audiences. Comparing blackboard teaching of nature study with other educational images and audiences for science explores how multisensory learning and the blackboard brought information about the natural world and engagement with science to the public.


2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-216
Author(s):  
А. А. Romanov ◽  
◽  
K.K Zhampeissova ◽  

The article shows the stages of life of the outstanding teacher, psychologist, scientist and educator A.P.Nechaev, exiled to Kazakhstan. describing the main milestones and dynamics of the formation of experimental pedagogy in the early twentieth century. His name is associated with many innovative methods of scientific research for its time, the priority of the development of syndrome psychology, which laid the basic provisions of differential psychophysiology. The current ideas of the scientist about the integrity of the study and the spiritual and moral development of the individual are highlighted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document