In Making Natural Knowledge: Constructivism and the History of Science, Jan Golinski reviews recent writing on the history of science and shows how it has been dramatically reshaped by a new understanding of science itself. In the last few years, scientific knowledge has come to be seen as a product of human culture, an approach that has challenged the tradition of the history of science as a story of steady and autonomous progress. New topics have emerged in historical research, including: (...) the identity of the scientist, the importance of the laboratory, the role of language and instruments, and the connections with other realms of culture and society. Golinski has written a sympathetic but critical survey of this exciting field of research, at a level that can be appreciated by students or anyone else who wants an introduction to contemporary thinking in the development of the sciences. (shrink)

The systematization of the sciences as a cultural task. Options for an open understanding of culture in Paul Hinneberg's Encyclopedia. – Paul Hinneberg promises, in his multi‐volume Kultur der Gegenwart (1906sqq.), to capture the ‘culture’ of his time in its entirety; only a veritable encyclopedia could be adequate to the task of synthesizing the manifold and disparate tendencies of ‘Kultur’. Surprisingly, however, any attempt to make explicit the systematic principles governing his encyclopedic synthesis is missing from his project. It is (...) argued that this – unusual – feature of Hinneberg's Kultur der Gegenwart can itself be understood as a result of typical analyses of ‘Kultur’ at the turn of the century; culture, as an open, multi‐sided, and integrative concept may indeed best be captured in an open system that avoids strict and explicit demarcations. In these respects, the task of capturing Kultur turns out to be closely linked to another task prominent around 1900: that of providing a systematic ordering of the various ‘Wissenschaften’. (shrink)

Usually one reads that after the foundation of scientific journals the journal article took the place of scientific correspondence. It is shown here that periodicals did not replace the letter, but only supplemented it. Norms were developed for the journal article such that (in short) only the „context of justification”︁, not the „context of discovery”︁, could be discussed. Any scholar who wanted to participate in the „discussion out of which science arises”︁ had to resort to the letter; the reading of (...) journals did not suffice. — This circumstance is illustrated in particular by the example of quantum theory and by Wolfgang Pauli. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to demonstrate the importance of scientific communication of pharmacists in the 19th century. 89 letters were analysed both written received by August Peter Julius Du Menil . In the paper also a summary is given about the importance of extensive activity of the pharmacist Du Menil. He was be in correspondence with 39 scientists, for instance 13 physicans and 12 pharmacists. The letters are an interesting document about scientific community in the 19th century.