In 1614, the physician Sanctorius Sanctorius published his most famous work entitled Ars […] de statica medicina. This is a work composed of aphorisms that present the practical results of a series of weighing procedures, rather than theoretical observations. De statica medicina is the result of a large number of test series that Sanctorius carried out over many years with the weighing chair he constructed himself in order to quantify the so-called perspiratio insensibilis, an insensible perspiration of the human body. (...) Through his weighing experiments, Sanctorius introduced the idea of quantitative research into physiology. Although historical accounts ascribe an important role to Sanctorius as the founder of a new medical science, up until now the design of his weighing chair and the method of measurement have not been closely analysed. The aim of this paper is to close this gap. Through a collaboration between the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science and the Technical University of Berlin, Sanctorius’s weighing chair was reconstructed and experiments carried out with it. This opened new perspectives on Sanctorius’s work and led to a reconsideration of the function and purpose of his weighing chair. With his static medicine, Sanctorius repurposed an old instrument. The replication of the weighing chair and the repetition of the experiments demonstrate that this novel application of scales posed some challenges for the mechanical design of the instrument. We recognized that the instrument fulfilled different functions that might in turn have affected its design, precision, and the measuring method applied. Although in the end we could not clarify how Sanctorius actually conducted his measurements, we were nevertheless able to develop an understanding of Sanctorius’s mechanical and practical knowledge that would not have been possible for us to develop solely on the basis of the written sources. (shrink)

This article is a contribution to the history of the Geiger-Müller counter, based on the replication method. Along with a historical analysis of the Geiger-Müller counter I present and discuss my experience with replicas of early counters from 1928. The explicit and tacit knowledge that was gained during my construction und the experimentation process allows a different view of the development process in 1928. Against this background, I discuss Walter Müller’s role in the development and the significance of experimental work (...) in Geiger’s laboratory by illustrating the status of data gained from indirect electrical measurements in the field of early radioactivity research. All things considered it was not the instrument itself, but Geiger’s influence and status that affected its establishment in the scientific community in an authoritative way. (shrink)

This inaugural handbook documents the distinctive research field that utilizes history and philosophy in investigation of theoretical, curricular and pedagogical issues in the teaching of science and mathematics. It is contributed to by 130 researchers from 30 countries; it provides a logically structured, fully referenced guide to the ways in which science and mathematics education is, informed by the history and philosophy of these disciplines, as well as by the philosophy of education more generally. The first handbook to cover the (...) field, it lays down a much-needed marker of progress to date and provides a platform for informed and coherent future analysis and research of the subject. -/- The publication comes at a time of heightened worldwide concern over the standard of science and mathematics education, attended by fierce debate over how best to reform curricula and enliven student engagement in the subjects There is a growing recognition among educators and policy makers that the learning of science must dovetail with learning about science; this handbook is uniquely positioned as a locus for the discussion. -/- The handbook features sections on pedagogical, theoretical, national, and biographical research, setting the literature of each tradition in its historical context. Each chapter engages in an assessment of the strengths and weakness of the research addressed, and suggests potentially fruitful avenues of future research. A key element of the handbook’s broader analytical framework is its identification and examination of unnoticed philosophical assumptions in science and mathematics research. It reminds readers at a crucial juncture that there has been a long and rich tradition of historical and philosophical engagements with science and mathematics teaching, and that lessons can be learnt from these engagements for the resolution of current theoretical, curricular and pedagogical questions that face teachers and administrators. (shrink)

Eighteenth century river hydraulics used both theory and measurement to address problems of flood safety, navigation and defense related to the rivers. In the late eighteenth century the Dutch overseer of the rivers, Christiaan Brunings, integrated hydraulic theory and meteorological practices, which enabled him to design a unique instrument for measuring river flow. The question is whether the unprecedented detail of measurements fits the putative empirical stance in the eighteenth century. The interactions between theory, instrument, measurement, and other knowledge practices (...) are here assessed using experiences in similar measurement practices. I argue that Brunings had theoretical and embodied understanding of hydrodynamics, as he knew how to design an instrument for flow measurement of sufficient accuracy for his purpose in the sociopolitical context of river management. (shrink)

This paper examines how the production, content and reception of the film Antony van Leeuwenhoek (1924) influenced the historical framing of science. The film features microcinematography by the pioneering Dutch filmmaker Jan Cornelis Mol (1891–1954), and was part of a dynamic process of commemorating seventeenth-century microscopy and bacteriology through an early instance of visual re-creation – a new way of using scientific material heritage, and of enabling audiences to supposedly observe the world of microscopic organisms in just the same way (...) as the Dutch scientist Antoni van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) had observed them for himself. Knowledge transfer concerning material culture, around both historical and contemporary instruments, was the determining factor in the microcinematography practices applied in this film. The production and experience of the film also mirrored the seventeenth-century process of experimentation, playing with optics, and visualizing an entirely new and unknown world. Unlike other biographical science films of the 1920s, Antony van Leeuwenhoek featured abstract depictions of time and movement that allowed the audience to connect the history of science with microcinematography, contributing to the memory of Van Leeuwenhoek's work as the origins of bacteriology in the process. (shrink)