Summary Of The Actuality of the History of Sciences | The Actuality of the History of Sciences Summary

The Actuality of the History of Sciences Short Notes And Analysis

Gaston Bachelard talks about the progress of science. When we learn the history of science, we are talking about the history of ideas. There is never a decadence of intelligence but there is decadence of nation, people and culture. Sometimes misused scientific thinking can cause stagnation. Sometimes a theory would be forgotten and years later would be explained with other evidence. 

There is no absolute truth, but various experiments are necessary to arrive at a conclusion in science. There is a development of science - the change of the Cartesian world (where there is a clear separation between subject and object) to the modern world order in which the subject and the object form part of a system. Thus, the study of the history of science helps to acquire a thorough knowledge of modern science.

v

It is fascinating to note the progress of science. When we enter the Palais de la Découverte (a science museum in the Grand Palais, Paris), which contains permanent exhibitions of mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc., one wonders whether to come to see the inventions Is a crime. Sometimes, the history of science is learned for curiosity as a relaxed study to have a knowledge of the past.

Short Story Of The Actuality of the History of Sciences

This essay, in fact of the sciences, speaks of the positive effects that scientific thoughts can contribute to the contemporary society. The history of science is different from all other stories. We do not think of the decadence of scientific thought. But we speak of the decadence of a people, a nation or a culture. When civilizations decrease, there is a stagnation of knowledge, due to the deterioration of intellectual and moral customs poverty. Science as we know may have periods of inactivity. 

Poorly used scientific thinking can be a cause of stagnation. During periods of general regression, truth awaited rebirth. For a historian, this is the end of a particular online search from which a new line of research begins. Sometimes a particular line of thought may remain dormant until it recharges itself to form a new idea. The history of science always speaks of the progress of human civilization.

When one speaks of decadence, science never diminishes but it enters into another axis of thought. This adds to the reader's knowledge. Sometimes a particular theory, for example, the decline of Cartesian physics has caused the progress of scientific thought that has uncovered Newtonian physics.

The Actuality of the History of Sciences Summary

Unlike science, the history of art is a simple myth. The art historian highlights the value of a primitive art that has the perfection of the first attempt. In the history of philosophy too, the idea of ​​progress is incorrect. In political history, what appears as a progress for a historian can serve another. In science, we can find absolute positivity. There can be no decadence because any failure to respect the truth is a mistake. The history of science therefore says of growth or it has nothing to say. Unlike other historians, a historian of science must judge the value of scientific thoughts and discoveries. It makes readers understand the value of new thoughts.

The historian of science must know the present to judge the past. It is the strong link of the history of science with the actuality of science. It is the present that illuminates the past in science, for Brianchon's theorem has illuminated the mystery of Pascal's hexagram. Leon Brunschvicg said that the past exists for us, not for them. As Socrates has already professed "being able to teach".

Brunschvicg warns the historian of science that the facts should unfold with a history of the unfolding of values.

Then the author says of Ingen- H ouz explains how the salt of Peter, composed of potash and an acid called nitrous, contains no fiery principle. The carbon that is the second ingredient in the gunpowder is not at all dangerous. He rightly considers that the tanker is a source of dephlogistic air (oxygen). He does not think that carbon is a source of flammable gas (hydrogen). The mixing of these two catches triggers violence as the fire approaches.

The author asserts that the history of science can not be an empirical history, for the history of science can not be described simply by the crumbs of facts, for it is the history of the progress of the rational bonds of knowledge . In addition to the causal link, there is a link of reason to consequence in the history of science.

Scientific culture should be integrated into general culture. Everyone is interested in the history of great intellectuals like Galelio and Kepler. Science is currently socialized. The historian of science must make the present generation aware of the human value of science today.