Suchergebnisse

This volume provides a history of the concepts, practices, institutions, and ideologies of social sciences (including behavioural and economic sciences) since the eighteenth century. It offers original, synthetic accounts of the historical development of social knowledge, including its philosophical assumptions, its social and intellectual organization, and its relations to science, medicine, politics, bureaucracy, philosophy, religion, and the professions. Its forty-two chapters include inquiries into the genres and traditions that formed social science, the careers of the main social disciplines (psychology, economics, sociology, anthropology, political science, geography, history, and statistics), and international essays on social science in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It also includes essays that examine the involvement of the social sciences in government, business, education, culture, and social policy. This is a broad cultural history of social science, which analyzes from a variety of perspectives its participation in the making of the modern world

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.

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.

The article is a review of the textbook on the history of Russian archaeology prepared by A. S. Skripkin, professor of Volgograd State University, a well-known archaeologist specializing in the study of the Sarmatian tribes. The textbook was issued by the "Urait" publishing company in 2017. The first part, dominating in amount, is devoted to the history of the development of the Russian archaeology from the 18th century until the last quarter of the 20th century. The second part briefly outlines the topic well-known to the author — the history of archaeological research in the Lower Volga region in the same chronological period. However, the main problem of the reviewed publication is the author's failure to use a considerable number of works published on this subject over the last 25 years. Almost all the information contained in the first section of the textbook was borrowed from the books by A. A. Formozov, G. S. Lebedev, V. F. Gening, A. D. Pryakhin published in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, in the years passed since then, a whole direction connected with the study of various aspects of its history has been formed in the Russian archaeology. A significant range of monographic publications, collections of articles and conference materials have been published; more than fifty candidate and doctoral dissertations have been defended. Unfortunately, all this remained beyond the scope of A. S. Skripkin. Therefore, there are numerous out-of-date ideas concerning various subjects connected with the formation and development of the Russian archaeology. Furthermore, the text contains a considerable number of factual errors, inaccuracies, misprints.

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.