Scientific Communication and Metaphors: An Analysis of Einstein's 1905 Special Relativity Paper

1995 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Johnson-Sheehan

Examining the history of science from the perspective of metaphor suggests that there are few differences between the literal and the metaphorical in scientific discourse. The central role of metaphors in science seems to ensure that science is open-ended, suggesting that conceptions of reality will always be open to change and interpretation.

Author(s):  
Anna Kołos

The article addresses the issue of one of the more intense and captivating European scientific disputes, likewise common to Poland, in the era of the seventeenth-century transformation of knowledge formation, which centered around the possibility of the existence of vacuum, and which culminated in 1647. The fundamental aim of the article comes down to an attempt to determine a position in the scientific-cognitive debate, from which the pro and anti-Polish and European representatives of The Republic of Letters (Respublica literaria)  could voice their opinions. In the course of the analysis of the mid-seventeenth century scientific discourse, the reflections of Valeriano Magni, Torricelli, Jan Brożek, Wojciech Wijuk Kojałowicz, Blaise Pascal, Giovanni Elefantuzzi, Jacob Pierius, and Pierre Guiffart are subjected to close scrutiny. From the perspective of contextualism in the history of science, experiments demonstrating the existence of vacuum are perceived as anomalies that fall into the crisis of normal science, largely based on Aristotle’s physics. The conflict between the old and the new is not, however, presented as a battle of progression with epigonism, but merely as a contest between opposing individual views and the concept of science, which before the formation of the new paradigm was accompanied by ambiguous verification criteria.


Author(s):  
Pablo Azócar Fernández ◽  
Zenobio Saldivia Maldonado

In the history of cartography and in critical cartography, there is a link between the role of maps and power relations, especially during the conquest and domination of territories by national states. Such cartographic products have frequently been used—for both their scientific and persuasive content—in different places, such as in Chile in the Araucanía region during the so-called pacification process, led by the Chilean state during the second half of the 19th century. From a cartographic perspective, the “epistemological and unintentional silences on the maps” can be observed for maps produced during this process. It implied that the “scientific discourse” and the “social and political discourse” of the cartographic images generated during this process of conquest and domination were relevant for the expansionist objectives of the Republic of Chile.


2019 ◽  
Vol 72 ◽  
pp. 01016
Author(s):  
Dmitriy Koshlakov ◽  
Marina Khokhlova ◽  
Galina Tsareva ◽  
Galina Garbuzova

The paper is devoted to eponyms used in scientific discourse. The concept of the eponym is borrowed from linguistic research. The term is understood from epistemological standpoint. It is stated that eponyms realize two functions in the language of science – cognitive and communicative. It is also stressed that to some extend eponyms connect two worlds – the world of ideas and the world of people, or, more specifically, the world of abstract concepts and the world of scientists, who study these abstract concepts. Historical examples (cases) demonstrating some features of functioning eponyms are given and discussed. The main historical example for the study is the history of discovering Lorentz’s transformations, which had a significant impact on forming the theory of special relativity. In addition, the paper gives the analysis of some other examples, in particular, related to such terms as Halley's comet, L'Hospital rule, Russell's paradox. It is noted that the fact of discovering some scientific object by one or another scientist in general is not the only reason for forming an eponym containing the name of this scientist. The formation of eponyms is influenced by many other factors, including social and political ones.


Author(s):  
Marco Aurélio Clemente Gonçalves ◽  
Mariele Regina Pinheiro Gonçalves ◽  
Pablo Eduardo Ortiz

The discovery of x-rays, one of the most beautiful experiments ever carried out, generates numerous controversies and these, in turn, can trigger a series of counterproductive information regarding not only the History of Science but also the teaching  activity. The aim of this article is to resolve these controversies concerning what ocurred and highlight the important role of the German physicist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, highlighting not only his genius but, especially in this case in particular, his condition of second-order observer. It is not uncommon to find information in various media refering to this discovery under the claim that it was the result of a fortuitous event, and this denotes a profound lack of knowledge about the facts or a disrespect for the renowned discoverer. Such allegations about the event depreciate the extraordinary discovery that impacts humanity, from the deed  to the present. Thus, through a brief historical reconstruction, it was tried to present here what had happened judiciously. With this respect, the brilliant scientist is given the status of a second-rate observer, from the philosophical point of view. This condition resonates with the diachronic aspect of the History of Science, according to the perspective presented here, and it is also supported by the time taken by the discoverer from the beginning of his research until the end of it. Keywords: X-Ray. Second-Order Observer. History of Science. ResumoO descobrimento dos raios-x, um dos mais belos experimentos já realizados, gera inúmeras controvérsias e essas, por sua vez, podem desencadear uma série de informações contraproducentes no tangente não só a História da Ciência como também à atividade de ensino. O presente artigo tem como objetivo dirimir tais polêmicas com respeito ao ocorrido e destacar o importante papel do físico alemão Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, destacando não só sua genialidade, mas sobretudo, neste caso em particular, a sua condição de observador de segunda ordem. Não é raro encontrar em diversos meios de comunicação informações com respeito a referida descoberta sob a alegação de que a mesma fora fruto de um caso fortuito e isso denota profundo desconhecimento sobre os fatos, ou então, desrespeito com o renomado descobridor. Tais alegações sobre o sucedido depreciam a descoberta extraordinária que impacta a humanidade, desde o feito até a atualidade. Assim, através de breve reconstrução histórica, buscou-se aqui apresentar o ocorrido criteriosamente. Com este respeito passa-se a atribuir ao brilhante cientista a condição de observador de segunda ordem, do ponto de vista filosófico. Tal condição encontra ressonância no aspecto diacrônico da História da Ciência, segundo a perspectiva aqui apresentada e está amparada, também, pelo tempo empreendido pelo descobridor desde o início de sua pesquisa até a finalização da mesma. Palavras-chave: Raios-x. Observador de Segunda Ordem. História da Ciência.


2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
JANET VERTESI

AbstractThis article places the famous images of Johannes Hevelius's instruments in his Machina Coelestis (1673) in the context of Hevelius's contested cometary observations and his debate with Hooke over telescopic sights. Seen thus, the images promote a crafted vision of Hevelius's astronomical practice and skills, constituting a careful self-presentation to his distant professional network and a claim as to which instrumental techniques guarantee accurate observations. Reviewing the reception of the images, the article explores how visual rhetoric may be invoked and challenged in the context of controversy, and suggests renewed analytical attention to the role of laboratory imagery in instrumental cultures in the history of science.


Author(s):  
Ciro Tomazella Ferreira ◽  
Cibelle Celestino Silva

In this paper, we present an analysis of the evolution of the history of science as a discipline focusing on the role of the mathematization of nature as a historiographical perspective. Our study is centered in the mathematization thesis, which considers the rise of a mathematical approach of nature in the 17th century as being the most relevant event for scientific development. We begin discussing Edmund Husserl whose work, despite being mainly philosophical, is relevant for having affected the emergence of the narrative of the mathematization of nature and due to its influence on Alexandre Koyré. Next, we explore Koyré, Dijksterhuis, and Burtt’s works, the historians from the 20th century responsible for the elaboration of the main narratives about the Scientific Revolution that put the mathematization of science as the protagonist of the new science. Then, we examine the reframing of the mathematization thesis with the narrative of two traditions developed by Thomas S. Kuhn and Richard Westfall, in which the mathematization of nature shares space with other developments taken as equally relevant. We conclude presenting contemporary critical perspectives on the mathematization thesis and its capacity for synthesizing scientific development.


2020 ◽  
pp. 173-191
Author(s):  
Piotr P. Zhauniarovich ◽  

Taking into consideration the fact that editing is considered to be a field of scientific knowledge, a sphere of practical activity, and a discipline, problems of terminology appear. The aim of the research is to reveal definitions and statements that tend to take the role of terms and contain conflicting statements obstructing the scientific comprehension of terms. The research focuses on the comparison of different definitions of the term “editing” and of its types given by Russian and foreign theorists and practitioners, as well as on the analysis of new terms introduced into scientific discourse. The author touches upon various definitions of the concept of editing, considers its types as well as differences between the notions of editing and literary editing, compares the interpretations of these concepts in Russian, British, and American (editing, copyediting), Ukrainian and Polish scientific discourses, offers his vision of the problems. Textbooks and reference books do not always provide proper differences between the two main components of editorial activity—editorial analysis (evaluation) and editing. There are significant developments of Russian researchers in the direction of the history of editing ahead of the Western research. One can state that Russia has a school of editing history, and university researchers make a great contribution to its development. The author suggests adhering to the established traditions in the interpretation of editing and using it in journalism in the same sense as in book publishing, since initially it was the publishing of books that caused the need in editing as a professional activity. The result of the research demonstrates that it is impossible to refer editing as a sphere of scientific knowledge only to book publishing or philology. The author proposes his own definition of editing, tries to optimize the number of types of editing (particularly, duplication of the notions “editing” and “literary editing”, “editing” and “copyediting” is stated), and introduces a terminological combination “history of editing” into scientific discourse. The author proves that the replacement of the concepts “editing” and “editorial analysis” with such notions as “text activity” and “criticism of speech”, respectively, is not justified in scientific terms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document