By the onset of the Second World War, the British scientific periodicalNature– specifically,Nature's ‘Letters to the editor’ column – had become a major publication venue for scientists who wished to publish short communications about their latest experimental findings. This paper argues that the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ernest Rutherford was instrumental in establishing this use of the ‘Letters to the editor’ column in the early twentieth century. Rutherford's contributions setNatureapart from its fellow scientific weeklies in Britain and helped construct a defining (...) feature ofNature's influence in the twentieth century. Rutherford's participation in the journal influenced his students and colleagues in the field of radioactivity physics and drew physicists like the German Otto Hahn and the American Bertram Borden Boltwood to submit their work toNatureas well, andNaturecame to play a major role in spreading news of the latest research in the science of radioactivity. Rutherford and his colleagues established a pattern of submissions to the ‘Letters to the editor’ that would eventually be adopted by scientists from diverse fields and from laboratories around the world. (shrink)

L'évolution des tests gravitationnels dans une perspective épistémologique encadré dans le concept de reconstruction rationnelle d'Imre Lakatos, fondée sur sa méthodologie de programmes de recherche. Contrairement à d'autres travaux sur le même sujet, la période évaluée est très longue, allant de la philosophie naturelle de Newton aux théories de la gravité quantique d'aujourd'hui. Afin d'expliquer de manière plus rationnelle l'évolution complexe du concept de gravité du siècle dernier, je propose une extension naturelle de la méthodologie des programmes de recherche que (...) j'utilisais ensuite au cours de la communication. Je pense que cette approche offre une nouvelle perspective sur la manière dont le concept de gravité et les méthodes de test de chaque théorie de la gravité ont évalué dans le temps, par le biais d'observations et d'expériences. Je soutiens, sur la base de la méthodologie des programmes de recherche et des études des scientifiques et des philosophes, que les théories actuelles de la gravité quantique sont dégénératives, en raison du manque de preuves expérimentales sur une longue période et d'auto-immunisation contre la possibilité de la réfutabilité. De plus, un courant méthodologique est en cours de développement, attribuant un rôle secondaire, sans importance, aux vérifications par le biais d'observations et / ou d'expériences. Pour cette raison, il ne sera pas possible d'avoir une théorie complète de la gravité quantique sous sa forme actuelle qui inclura à la limite la relativité générale, car les théories physiques ont toujours été ajustées, au cours de leur évolution, sur la base d'essais d'observation ou expérimentaux, et vérifiées par les prédictions effectuées. En outre, contrairement à une opinion répandue et aux programmes en cours concernant l'unification de toutes les forces fondamentales de la physique dans une théorie finale unique, basée sur la théorie des cordes, je soutiens que cette unification est généralement improbable et, de toute façon, impossible pour que l'unification soit développée sur la base des théories actuelles de la gravité quantique, y compris la théorie des cordes. En outre, je partage l’avis de certains scientifiques et philosophes selon lequel on consacre actuellement trop de ressources à l’idée de développer des théories de la gravité quantique, et en particulier de la théorie des cordes, qui devrait inclure la relativité générale et unifier la gravité avec d’autres forces, en particulier conditions dans lesquelles la science n’impose pas de tels programmes de recherche. (shrink)

In this paper, I investigate the issue of the contingency and inevitability of science. First, I point out valuable insights from the existing discussion about the issue. I then formulate a general framework, built on the notion of contrastive explanation and counterfactuals, that can be used to approach questions of contingency of science. I argue, with an example from the existing historiography of science, that this framework could be useful to historians of science. Finally, I argue that this framework shows (...) the existing views on historical contingency and counterfactuals in a new light. The framework also shows the value of existing historiography in philosophical debates. (shrink)

In their major work, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow expressed the opinion of presumably many working physicists, philosophers of physics and even educated laymen when they said, "philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." Their examples of the fields that have been conquered by physicists include most of the perennial philosophical questions: "what is the (...) nature of the world", "how can we understand the world," "where did we come from," "how did the universe come into existence."Due to numerous disruptions that shocked the... (shrink)

ArgumentThis article contributes to a global history of relativity, by exploring how Einstein’s theory was appropriated in Belgium. This may sound like a contradiction in terms, yet the early-twentieth-century Belgian context, because of its cultural diversity and reflectiveness of global conditions (the principal example being the First World War), proves well-suited to expose transnational flows and patterns in the global history of relativity. The attempts of Belgian physicist Théophile de Donder to contribute to relativity physics during the 1910s and 1920s (...) illustrate the role of the war in shaping the transnational networks through which relativity circulated. The local attitudes of conservative Belgian Catholic scientists and philosophers, who denied that relativity was philosophically significant, exemplify a global pattern: while critics of relativity feared to become marginalized by the scientific, political, and cultural revolutions that Einstein and his theory were taken to represent, supporters sympathized with these revolutions. (shrink)

This paper argues that that political context of British science popularization in the inter-war period was intimately tied to contemporary debates about religion and science. A leading science popularizer, the Quaker astronomer A.S. Eddington, and one of his opponents, the materialist Chapman Cohen, are examined in detail to show the intertwined nature of science, philosophy, religion, and politics.

This paper addresses the legendary total solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. Two British teams confirmed the light bending prediction by Albert Einstein: Charles R. Davidson and Andrew C. C. Crommelin in Sobral, Brazil and Arthur S. Eddington and Edwin T. Cottingham on the African island of Príncipe, then part of the Portuguese empire.By jointly analyzing the two astronomical expeditions supported by written and visual sources, I show how, despite extensive scholarship on this famous historical episode and the historiographical emphasis (...) on the plural dimensions of knowledge construction, many human and non-human actors have been kept in the shadow of the eclipse. I do so by focusing on what I call knowledge from the periphery together with knowledge from below, grounded literally on how localities (sites) affect choices and events, and growing outward to encompass a wide range of participants. I show how the geopolitical status of the two nations where the observational sites were located, and specifically Portugal's condition of colonial power, affected main decisions and events, while highlighting the active role of participants, ranging from experts from the peripheries and those involved in the travels to local elites and anonymous peoples, some of whom contributed to the observation of totality. (shrink)

Starting from the seminal experience of James Prescott Joule, this paper aims to debate the possibility of “making” science outside universities and academies. Joule himself studied as an autodidact and did not make his own discoveries while following an academic path; on the contrary, at first, the associations and academic societies of the time tended not to recognize his works officially. All of this happened throughout the nineteenth century during the period of the first relevant tendency to science popularization. For (...) example, looking at the second half of the England of the 1800s, we can refer to Michael Faraday’s open lessons for children like The Chemical History of a Candle. Following this perspective from a historical view, this paper explores the Italian attempts to communicate science—from the ‘50s to the ‘70s—to a larger public via television and other media, also considering the political and social backgrounds behind this choice. In particular, this paper also deals with Lucio Lombardo Radice’s work on TV programs and writings in social-political journals and daily newspapers, as a mathematician and pedagogist engaged on the importance of what he specifically called “Scientific mediation”, as a “method” to teach and popularize science to a larger public. (shrink)

The evolution of gravitational tests from an epistemological perspective framed in the concept of rational reconstruction of Imre Lakatos, based on his methodology of research programmes. Unlike other works on the same subject, the evaluated period is very extensive, starting with Newton's natural philosophy and up to the quantum gravity theories of today. In order to explain in a more rational way the complex evolution of the gravity concept of the last century, I propose a natural extension of the methodology (...) of the research programmes of Lakatos that I then use during the paper. I believe that this approach offers a new perspective on how evolved over time the concept of gravity and the methods of testing each theory of gravity, through observations and experiments. I argue, based on the methodology of the research programmes and the studies of scientists and philosophers, that the current theories of quantum gravity are degenerative, due to the lack of experimental evidence over a long period of time and of self-immunization against the possibility of falsification. Moreover, a methodological current is being developed that assigns a secondary, unimportant role to verification through observations and/or experiments. For this reason, it will not be possible to have a complete theory of quantum gravity in its current form, which to include to the limit the general relativity, since physical theories have always been adjusted, during their evolution, based on observational or experimental tests, and verified by the predictions made. Also, contrary to a widespread opinion and current active programs regarding the unification of all the fundamental forces of physics in a single final theory, based on string theory, I argue that this unification is generally unlikely, and it is not possible anyway for a unification to be developed based on current theories of quantum gravity, including string theory. In addition, I support the views of some scientists and philosophers that currently too much resources are being consumed on the idea of developing quantum gravity theories, and in particular string theory, to include general relativity and to unify gravity with other forces, as long as science does not impose such research programs. -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35350.70724 . (shrink)

Evoluția testelor gravitaționale dintr-o perspectivă epistemologică încadrată în conceputul de reconstrucție rațională al lui Imre Lakatos, pe baza metodologiei acestuia a programelor de cercetare. Perioada evaluată este foarte vastă, începând cu filosofia naturală a lui Newton și până la teoriile gravitației cuantice din zilele noastre. Pentru a explica mai rațional evoluția complexă a conceptului de gravitație din ultimul secol, propun o extindere naturală a metodologiei programelor de cercetare pe care o folosesc apoi pe parcursul lucrării. Consider că această abordare oferă (...) o nouă perspectivă asupra modului în care au evaluat în timp conceptul de gravitație și metodele de testare a fiecărei teorii a gravitației, prin observații și experimente. Argumentez, pe baza metodologiei programelor de cercetare și a studiilor oamenilor de știință și filosofilor, că actualele teorii ale gravitației cuantice sunt degenerative, datorită lipsei dovezilor experimentale pe o perioadă îndelungată de timp și a auto-imunizării împotriva posibilității falsificării. Mai mult, în prezent este în curs de dezvoltare un curent metodologic care atribuie un rol secundar, neimportant, verificărilor prin observații și/sau experimente. Din această cauză, nu va fi posibilă o teorie completă a gravitației cuantice în forma actuală care să includă la limită relativitatea generală, întrucât teoriile fizice au fost dintotdeauna ajustate, în decursul evoluției lor, pe baza testelor observaționale sau experimentale, și verificate prin predicțiile făcute. De asemenea, contrar unei opinii răspândite și a unor programe active actuale privind unificarea tuturor forțelor fundamentale ale fizicii într-o singură teorie finală, pe baza teoriei corzilor, argumentez că este puțin probabil în general să se realizeze această unificare, și nu este posibil oricum ca unificarea să se elaboreze pe baza teoriilor actuale ale gravitației cuantice, inclusiv prin teoria corzilor. În plus, susțin punctele de vedere ale unor oameni de știință și filosofi că în prezent se consumă mult prea multe resurse pe ideea dezvoltării teoriilor gravitației cuantice, și în special teoria corzilor, care să includă relativitatea generală și să unifice gravitația cu celelalte forțe, în condițiile în care știința nu impune astfel de programe de cercetare. -/- DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14582.75842 . (shrink)

In this book, I defend the present-centered approach in historiography of science (i.e. study of the history of science), build an account for causal explanations in historiography of science, and show the fruitfulness of the approach and account in when we attempt to understand science. -/- The present-centered approach defines historiography of science as a field that studies the developments that led to the present science. I argue that the choice of the targets of studies in historiography of science should (...) be directly connected to our values and preferences in an intersubjective process. The main advantage of this approach is that it gives a clear motivation for historiography of science and avoids or solves stubborn conceptual and practical problems within the field. -/- The account of causal explanations is built on the notions of counterfactual scenarios and contrastive question-answer pairs. I argue that if and only if we track down patterns of counterfactual dependencies, can we understand history. Moreover, I define the notions of historical explanation, explanatory competition, explanatory depth, and explanatory resources. -/- Finally, I analyze the existing historiography of science with the framework built in the previous chapter, and I show that this framework clarifies many first-order (i.e. concerning the history of science) and meta-level issues (i.e. concerning the nature of science in general) that historians and philosophers tackle. As an illustration of the philosophical power of the framework, I explicate the notion of local explanation and analyze the question of whether the developments of science were necessary or contingent. (shrink)