9(2)

The impasse evident in the exchange between Hesse and Rattansi exhibits the tension currently existing in the field. And yet, the role of the so-called pseudo-sciences is hardly the only source for this. Perhaps the sharpest debate at the moment concerns the relation of science and society. Only a few years ago this seemed to be relatively unimportant. When Thomas S. Kuhn prepared a history of science for the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1968) he compared « internalist » with « externalist » histories of science. The former dealt with technical questions related to the growth of science ; the latter were « attempts to set science in a cultural context which might enhance understanding both of its development and its effects ... » [37]. Of special interest was the debate over the thesis proposed by Thomas K. Merton (1938) which sought to explain the success of seventeenth century science in England by pointing to (a) the Baconian emphasis on practical arts and trade processes and (b) the stimulus of Puritanism in religion [38]. But if Kuhn argued that internal and external histories of science are complementary, it is also clear that he thought that external history of science was for the most part passé - proposed for the most part by scholars who had not made their point. The « new generation of historians », and here Kuhn was referring primarily to the Koyré inspired historians, claimed

to have shown that the radical sixteenth- and seventeenth-century revisions of astronomy, mathematics, mechanics, and even optics owed very little to new instruments, experiments, or observations. Galileo’s primary method, they argue, was the traditional thought experiment of scholastic science brought to a new perfection [39].

This was far removed from the craft tradition or the new methodology of Bacon which failed consistently. As far as the seventeenth century is concerned, Kuhn suggested that only the « new » sciences such as electricity and magnetism, chemistry, and thermal phenomena borrowed from the craft tradition [40]. The mathematical sciences should continue to be studied by internal methods.

Kuhn’s much discussed Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1952) is an internalist study seeking to explain scientific revolutions in terms of the replacement of
one scientific paradigm with another [41]. With ever increasing interest in non-scientific factors in the growth of science it is little wonder that this work has not strongly affected historians of science. Rather, it has appealed most to social scientists, philosophers and historians who have used it less as a model for the history of science than they have to examine the internal development of their own fields [42].

For Thomas Kuhn the « new » history of science was to be primarily internalist. However, the late sixties and the early seventies were to see an ever growing interest in the interrelation of science with society. For this reason the history of science has become a field far more attractive to historians, philosophers and social scientists - many of whom have had little training in either the sciences or the history of science. These authors argue that significant aspects of scientific history may now be grasped without the technical scientific knowledge that earlier seemed to be essential. There have been mixed results from this since, in fact, technical knowledge does remain important even in some of the most esoteric areas of the history of science. Still, a number of important studies have appeared. For example, Keith Thomas’ Religion and the Decline of Magic (1971) is a monumental contribution to our understanding of the early modern intellectual scene in England [43]. No less important is the work of Christopher Hill who has used the recent studies of alchemy and the Paracelsians as an integral key to his understanding of the Civil War in England in his The World Turned Upside Down (1972) [44].

In The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689-1720 (1976), Margaret Jacob has argued that the triumph of Newtonian physics may have been due less to the internal worth of Newton’s science than it was to the fact that English theologians in the period of the « Glorious Revolution » (1688) sought a powerful ally through their espousal of the Newtonian synthesis. She sees the new science as an explicit rejection of the older mechanical philosophies of Hobbes and Descartes as well as the Aristotelianism of the universities and the radical cosmologies of the mid-century which had too often been associated with those who rose in rebellion against the Church and State. For Jacob, the explanation of the triumph of Newtonianism is to be found in « its usefulness to the intellectual leaders of the Anglican Church... for their vision of... the ordered, providentially guided, mathematically regulated universe » [45]. This is what they saw in Newton’s work.
Here we are provided with an explanation of the Newtonian triumph on grounds totally divorced from the fact that Newton’s work represents the culmination of nearly a century and a half of scientific discussions and research going back to Copernicus.

[1En 1913, Georges Bigourdan édite un intéressant traité L’astronomie, l’évolution des idées et des méthodes, dans la table alphabétique duquel le mot comète n’est pas repris (non plus que météores, bolides, aérolithes ou étoiles filantes). Halley est cité huit fois sans l’ombre d’une allusion à la comète qui le rendit célèbre. Ceci est d’autant plus plaisant que l’auteur, astronome, rédigeait son travail (copyright en 1911) au moment du retour de 1910, qu’il l’a édité chez Flammarion éditeur et frère de Camille et, qu’en 1927, il compilera une liste de comètes historiques qui fait autorité (Ann. Bur. des Long.). Il existe heureusement une Histoire de l’astronomie de Doublet publiée en 1922 qui consacre plus de place à Halley et rappelle que Voltaire (Epître à Madame du Châtelet), Victor Hugo (La Légende des siècles) et Sully Prudhomme (Epreuves), qui était polytechnicien, célèbrent sa gloire.

[2 Hoefer (Histoire de l’Astronomie, 1873, pp. 461-462) attribue cet évènement à la comète de 1681-1682 en rapportant qu’Halley l’observa « pendant un voyage en France ». Par contre Doublet (op. cit. pp. 334-335) fixe ce voyage en 1680 et écrit : « il se trouvait à mi-route entre Calais et Paris quand il remarqua la fameuse comète de 1680... ». Dans son Histoire de la Science (1965), Pierre Rousseau emprunte aux deux auteurs des fragments difficilement conciliables : « ... 1679... l’année suivante ... une superbe comète apparut... L’astre chevelu passa, puis se perdit dans le rayonnement solaire. Sur ces entrefaites, Halley partit en France en 1682. Il était à mi-route entre Calais et Paris quand il aperçut une autre comète, exactement pareille à la première, mais passée de l’autre côté du Soleil et orientée juste à l’opposite. Si c’était la même ? se demanda-t-il ». Ce ne pouvait être la même. Admirons en passant l’ingénuité du « exactement pareille » tout aussi impossible.

[3 Hortense Lepaute, dont Le Gentil de la Galissière (1725-1792) retour des Indes en 1771, après avoir tenté en vain d’observer les passages de Vénus devant le Soleil les 6 juin 1761 et 9 juin 1769, fit la marraine de l’Hortensia.

[4Selon Doublet, il s’agirait du 3 avril (op. cit. p. 433). Mais J. Sauval (Ciel et Terre, vol. 101, 5-6, 1985, p. 210) précise trente deux jours d’écart. On peut penser qu’il s’agit d’une cocquille typographique (oubli de 1 dans 13).

[5On consultera avec profit l’article de H. Dupuis dans Ciel et Terre, vol. 101, pp. 217-220, 1985 : « 1910 : on se suicide, on fait la fête... mais on est surtout déçu ».

[6D’après A. M. Antoniadi « Idées des anciens sur les comètes » (L’astronomie, 52e année 1938, pp. 311-318, et « Les comètes, considérées en général comme des présages sinistres dans l’histoire » (ibidem, pp. 156-168).

[7IIIème Congrès International d’Histoire des Sciences. Tenu au Portugal du 30 septembre au 6 octobre 1934, sous le haut Patronage de S.E., le Président de la République Portugaise. Actes, Conférences et Communications. Lisboa, 1936 : 9-10.

[8G. Sarton, 1927-1948. - Introduction to the History of Science. I- III . 5 parts. Baltimore. I : 3.

[9ibid., 6.

[10Ibid., 19.

[11G. Sarton, 1952. - A History of Science : Ancient Science Through the Golden Age of Greece. Cambridge : xii.

[12Ibid., xi.

[13A. Koyré, 1966. - Etudes Galiléennes (3 parts, 1935-1939 ; reprinted in one volume), Paris : 11 .

[14See especially P. Duhem, 1913-59. - Le Système du Monde. I-X. Paris.

[15A. Koyré, 1958. - From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. New York : vi.

[16ibid., v.

[17L. Thorndike, 1923-58. - A History of Magic and Experimental Science. I -VIII. New York.

[18H. Sigerist, 1955-61. - A History of Medicine. I-II . New York.

[19C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard & A.R. Hall, eds., 1954-58, A History of Technology. I-V. New York – London.

[20J. Needham, 1961. - Science and Civilisation in China, I : Introductory Orientations. Cambridge.

[21The first volume published was the second covering the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. J.R. Partinglon, 1961. - A History of Chemistry. II London.

[22 « I am exceedingly sceptical of any attempt to reach a ’synthesis’ - whatever this term may mean - and I am convinced that specialization is the only basis of sound knowledge. » O. Neugebauer, 1952 & 62. - The Exact Sciences in Antiquity. New York : v-vi.

[23I.B. Cohen, 1957. - Some Recent Books on the History of Science, in Roots of Scientific Thought : A Cultural Perspective, ed. Ph. P. Wiener & A. Noland. New York : 627 -656. Published originally in the Journal of the History of Ideas.

[24M. Clagett, ed., 1962. - Critical Problems in the History of Science : Proceedings of the Institute for the History of Science at the University of Wisconsin, September 1-11, 1957. Madison : vi.

[25
W. Pazel, 1930. - Jo. Bapt. Van Helmont : Einführung in die philosophische Medizin des Barock. Berlin ; 1958. - Paracelsus : An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. Basel-New York ; 1967. - William Harvey’s Biological Ideas : Selected Aspects and Historical Background. Basel-New York.

[26W. Pagel, Autumn, 1945. - The Vindication of Rubbish, in Middlesex Hospital Journal : 1-4.

[27Ibid.

[28W. Pagel, 1967. - : 82.

[29W. Pagel, 1945. - : 4.

[30 F.A.Yates, 1964. - Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Chigago-London-Toronto.

[31F.A. Yates, 1972. - The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. London-Boston.

[32See Ibid., 113, 171-205.

[33R.S. Westfall, 1972. - Newton and the Hermetic Tradition in Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance : Essays to honor Walter Pagal .I-II, ed. Allen G. Debus, New York : 183-98.

[34 B.J.T. Dobbs, 1975. - The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy or « The Hunting of the Greene Lyon », Cambridge- London- New York- Melbourne : 230.

[35P.M. Rattansi, 1973. - Some Evaluations of Reason in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Natural Philosophy, in Changing Perspectives in the History of Science : Essays in Honour of Joseph Needham, ed. M. Teich & R. Young, London : 148-166.

[36M. Hesse, Reasons and Evaluation in the History of Science, Ibid., 127-147.

[37T.S. Kuhn, 1968 ; 1979. - History of Science, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, I-XVIII, ed. D.L Sills. New York : XVI, 75-83.

[38Ibid. 79-81.

[39Ibid. 80.

[40Ibid.

[41T.S. Kuhn, 1962. - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago. This book was alo issued as vol. II, number 2 of the International Encyclopedia of Allfied Science published by the University of Chicago Press.

[42As exemples of this literature see the following : B. Barnes, 1982. - T.S. Kuhn and Social Science, New York ; S. Seiler, 1980. - Wissenschaftstheorie in der Ethnologie : zur Kritik u. Weiterführung d. Theorie von Thomas S. Kuhn anhand etnograph. Berlin ; G. Gutting, ed. c. 1980. - Paradigms and Revolutions : Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Notre Dame.

[43K. Thomas, 1971 ; 1973. - Religion and the Decline of Magic : Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth - and Seventeenth-Century England. Harmondsworth.

[44C. Hill, 1972 ; 1973. - The World Turned Upside Down : Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. New York : especially 231-246.

[45 M.C. Jacob, 1976. - The Newtonians and the English Revolution 1689-1720. Ithaca : 16- 17.

[46W.J. Broad, History of Science Losing Its Science, in Science 207 January 25, 1980 : 389.

[47P. Wood, September, 1980. – RecentTrends in the History of Science : The dehumanisation of history, in BSHS Newsletter, N° 3 : 19-20.

[48H. Butterfield, 1959, - The History of Science and the Study of History, in Harvard Library Bulletin 13 : 329-347.

[49Ibid. 347.

[50 H. Butterfield, 1952. - The Origins of Modern Science 1300-1800. New York.

[51J.B. Conant, 1960. - History in the Education of Scientists, Harvard Library Bulletin 14 : 315-333.

[52Ibid. 325.

[53This assessment is my own after having taught courses of this genre for four years both at Harvard University and the University of Chicago during the years 1957-1959 and 1961-1963.

[54T.S. Kuhn, 1968 ; 1979 : 81.



















info visites 224863

     COCOF
                      Avec le soutien de la Commission
                           communautaire française