Search results

This paper derives from a presentation given in Oslo, at the Science Museum, on October 23 2013, in a workshop organised by Vidar Ennebak, as a critical stance against the exhibit "Sultans of Science" presented at the time in this museum. It's aim is to set the exhibit "Sultans of Science" and the opposition it has met as much in the far-right as among professional historians of science, in a wider context, by observing how Hindu nationalists have also made claims in history of science. The text is still in a draft form especially in the end, and has benefited from the critical remarks of S. Brentjes. All comments are welcome. ; Ce texte dérive d'une présentation faite au Musée des Sciences et Techniques d'Oslo le 23 Octobre 2013, dans le cadre d'un séminaire organisé par Vidar Ennebak dont l'objectif était de poser un regard critique sur l'exposition "Sultans des Sciences" présenté au musée. Mon objectif est de situer l'exposition, ces critiques d'extrême droite comme ceux d'historiens des sciences proffessionnels dans un cadre plus vaste en observant la manière dont les nationalistes hindous ont eux aussi réclamé l'histoire des sciences. Ce texte est encore inachevé, surtout sur la fin. Il a bénéficié des remarques critiques sur mon exposé oral de S. Brentjes. Vos réactions sont les bien venues.

This paper derives from a presentation given in Oslo, at the Science Museum, on October 23 2013, in a workshop organised by Vidar Ennebak, as a critical stance against the exhibit "Sultans of Science" presented at the time in this museum. It's aim is to set the exhibit "Sultans of Science" and the opposition it has met as much in the far-right as among professional historians of science, in a wider context, by observing how Hindu nationalists have also made claims in history of science. The text is still in a draft form especially in the end, and has benefited from the critical remarks of S. Brentjes. All comments are welcome. ; Ce texte dérive d'une présentation faite au Musée des Sciences et Techniques d'Oslo le 23 Octobre 2013, dans le cadre d'un séminaire organisé par Vidar Ennebak dont l'objectif était de poser un regard critique sur l'exposition "Sultans des Sciences" présenté au musée. Mon objectif est de situer l'exposition, ces critiques d'extrême droite comme ceux d'historiens des sciences proffessionnels dans un cadre plus vaste en observant la manière dont les nationalistes hindous ont eux aussi réclamé l'histoire des sciences. Ce texte est encore inachevé, surtout sur la fin. Il a bénéficié des remarques critiques sur mon exposé oral de S. Brentjes. Vos réactions sont les bien venues.

Historian Richard Hofstadter's observations about American cold-war politics are used to contextualize Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and argue that substantive claims about the nature of scientific knowledge and scientific change found in Structure were adopted from this cold-war political culture. Las observaciones del historiador Richard Hofstadter sobre la política americana en la Guerra Fría se utilizan para contextualizar La estructura de las revoluciones científicas de Thomas Kuhn y sostener que algunas afirmaciones fundamentales sobre la naturaleza del conocimiento científico y el cambio científico que se pueden hallar en La estructura fueron adoptadas de esta cultura política de la Guerra Fría.

AbstractThe paper is devoted to an overview of Cassirer's work both as historian of philosophy and historian of science. Indeed, the "intelletcual cooperation" between history of philosophy and history of science represents an essential feature of Cassirer's style of philosophizing: while the roots of a wide exploration stretching from Renaissance thought to modern physics go back to the Neo-Kantianism of the Marburg School, the results of a similar cross-fertilization of research fields have deeply contributed to shaping new standards of inquiry. Cassirer's relationship with the Warburg milieu in Hamburg and late in his life with the American intellectual scenario (for instance, with the "Journal of History of Ideas") are surely worthy of closer investigation. Distinguished scholars such as Meyerson, Brunschvicg, Burtt, Koyré, Metzger, Lovejoy, Kristeller, have disussed, appreciated, critizised Cassirer's still today fascinating studies devoted to Pico della Mirandola, Galileo, Newton, Leibniz, to mention but a few. To explore some of these aspects focusing both on affinities and differences within a cosmpolitian intellectual community can provide a better understanding of philosophy and history of science in the first half of 20th century. Cassirer's legacy requires, therefore, a new assessment.