论文标题
在欧洲
In Europe
论文作者
论文摘要
作为位于美国的科学学会历史学会，在欧洲大陆的主要学术中心之一举行了年度会议，这可能猜测该领域已经返回家园。然而，这几乎不反映了当今学术界的构成：在科学史学中，“省级欧洲”已成为一个重要的主题，而在学术界的情况下，该领域本身以美国的主要文学为中心。同时，自从很久以前，他们从很久以前就从科学中解放出来以来，他们经常出现在公众眼中，而不是寻求提高科学的权威。这种情况是如何产生的，它告诉我们有关我们今天生活的世界？寻求什么见解，从科学的历史研究中获得了什么公共利益？当我们试图回答这些问题时，我们将遵循他们在大西洋十字路口的二十世纪中叶历史学家 - Eduard Dijksterhuis，Thomas Kuhn和Martin Klein。他们对关于早期现代科学革命构成或马克斯·普朗克（Max Planck）作品的新颖性的辩论的回答将说明“中心”和“周边”的概念如何改变 - 以及今天可能告诉我们有关“在欧洲”的概念。
As the History of Science Society, which is based in America, holds its annual meeting in Utrecht, one of the key academic centers on the European continent, one may surmise that the field has returned home. Yet, this hardly reflects how today's world of scholarship is constituted: in the historiography of science, 'provincializing Europe' has become an important theme, while the field itself, as is the case across the world of academia, is centered around a predominantly American literature. At the same time, ever since historians of science have emancipated themselves from the sciences a long time ago, they often have appeared, in the public eye, to question rather than to seek to bolster the authority of the sciences. How has this situation come about, and what does it tell us about the world we live in today? What insight is sought and what public benefit is gained by the historical study of science? As we try to answer these questions, we will follow a number of key mid-twentieth century historians--Eduard Dijksterhuis, Thomas Kuhn and Martin Klein--in their Atlantic crossings. Their answers to debates on the constitution of the early modern scientific revolution or the novelty of the work of Max Planck will illustrate how notions of 'center' and 'periphery' have shifted--and what that may tell us about being 'in Europe' today.
